On Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 5:35:47 AM UTC+9 Nils Bruin wrote:
On Friday, 24 January 2025 at 11:28:42 UTC-8 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
To do this, it is very helpful that unfinished tickets are *not* closed,
because this gives me the "interesting" tickets with a single click: I hide
all the c
On Friday, 24 January 2025 at 11:28:42 UTC-8 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
To do this, it is very helpful that unfinished tickets are *not* closed,
because this gives me the "interesting" tickets with a single click: I hide
all the closed ones. Usually only a few remain, and the older among those
te
I'm afraid that adding a tag will modify the pull request, which would not
be good for my workflow. Could this be avoided?
Martin
On Friday, 24 January 2025 at 20:55:13 UTC+1 Vincent Macri wrote:
> It seems like adding an "r: stale" or "r: unresponsive" tag might be a
> better approach with m
It seems like adding an "r: stale" or "r: unresponsive" tag might be a
better approach with more support then, and we could have it written in
the developer guide how long after changes are requested this tag should
be applied. Then anyone who is looking to pickup unfinished work can
search for
I use the (very disappointing) search facility on github extensively to see
whether other people had similar problems when trying to implement
something.
To do this, it is very helpful that unfinished tickets are *not* closed,
because this gives me the "interesting" tickets with a single click:
To clarify, I don't think that adding a label that indicates there is code
which will probably bitrot and has been asked to address some issue is a
bad idea. It's the "closed" problem - GH does not by default automatically
search closed issues, and actually I could totally see somebody wanting
The reviewer may close unresponsive PRs with the label "r: invalid". By the
way, "r" stands for resolution. Or we could make up a new label "r:
unresponsive" (with one word). I propose to wait for 3 months before
closing.
That policy should apply for strictly unresponsive (with no apparent
r
I think a new label like “r: unresponsive” makes a lot of sense as opposed
to “r: invalid”.
Best,
Jackson
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 4:56 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> The reviewer may close unresponsive PRs with the label "r: invalid". By
> the way, "r" stands for resolution. Or we could make up a new
On 2025-01-23 10:35:13, Vincent Macri wrote:
> I want to clarify a couple things that might convince the people opposed
> to this (and if not I have a compromise proposal). Closing a PR doesn't
> mean we lose the potential contribution.
Any time you make a proposal you will get responses that sk
I want to clarify a couple things that might convince the people opposed
to this (and if not I have a compromise proposal). Closing a PR doesn't
mean we lose the potential contribution. You can still find closed PRs
here:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+is%3Aunmerge
er. Basically we should only be closing PRs where we reviewed
>> them, changes were requested, and changes were not made after several
>> months.
>>
>> Vincent Macri (he/him)
>> --------------
>> *From:* 'Gonzalo Tornaría' via sage-devel
Short version is I am strongly opposed to such a policy, automated or not.
It's good to see what code has been contributed but not merged for
different issues. We also should not assume unresponsive authors means they
have abandoned their PR too since I would say most of us have more limited
ti
On Wednesday, 22 January 2025 at 20:30:46 UTC-8 jackson...@gmail.com wrote:
I had a similar thought but didn’t know if it was possible. I don’t really
understand the idea of being religious about not touching someone’s PR if
they were the one that opened it. Surely just getting the code finished
our fault for not reviewing them in
>> a timely manner. Basically we should only be closing PRs where we reviewed
>> them, changes were requested, and changes were not made after several
>> months.
>>
>> Vincent Macri (he/him)
>> -----------------
eral
> months.
>
> Vincent Macri (he/him)
> --
> *From:* 'Gonzalo Tornaría' via sage-devel
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:22:43 AM
> *To:* sage-...@googlegroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sage-devel] Policy for closing abandoned PR
after several months.
Vincent Macri (he/him)
From: 'Gonzalo Tornaria' via sage-devel
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:22:43 AM
To: sage-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Policy for closing abandoned PRs
[△EXTERNAL]
As a comparisi
As a comparision, in void-packages there is the following policy:
- an issue (or PR) with 90 days of inactivity is labeled "stale" and will send
a notification.
- any activity in the issue will reset the "stale" label, so an author can
just make a status report on receipt of the notification to
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:48 AM kcrisman wrote:
>
> This would be a change in (perhaps not official) policy from Trac.
> Since PRs are separated from issues on GH (which wasn't really the case on
> Trac), a change might make sense. However, my opinion (for whatever it's
> worth) is that this is
incent Macri (he/him)
From: sage-devel@googlegroups.com on behalf of
kcrisman
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 8:48:31 AM
To: sage-devel
Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Policy for closing abandoned PRs
[△EXTERNAL]
This would be a change in (perhaps not official) policy f
This would be a change in (perhaps not official) policy from Trac. Since
PRs are separated from issues on GH (which wasn't really the case on Trac),
a change might make sense. However, my opinion (for whatever it's worth)
is that this is not really necessary, and could lead to useful code bein
That sounds reasonable to me. I have a couple open PRs, one of which
originated months ago, but I try to stay current with it. I don't see a
problem with closing it with an appropriate tag with the possibility of
reopening down the road if they do respond.
Best,
Jackson
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:
21 matches
Mail list logo
