On a related note, we will also be looking at the (usually neglected) GitHub PRs. We've accumulated ~50 of them over time.
After making a quick scan of the list, it turns out we can close a majority of these PRs by either directly closing the non-issues, or by committing the small documentation changes they propose. Here's a doc summarizing what we will be doing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxUFRCis_4One-_Eoi19xJ9NJejh1Zl4ZCLTUcUUESE/ Note: Direct access to the GitHub mirror is restricted, even to most committers, which is one reason why stale PRs stick around :( On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Alex Rukletsov <a...@mesosphere.com> wrote: > Joris, could we punt on this until after 1.0? Right now people focus on > polishing things for the release and I would like to avoid any > distractions. > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Joris Van Remoortere <jo...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Your suggestion generally encompasses the spirit of what we will do after > > we've given the community time to act on their own. The reason we will > > likely go through them manually is that there will be some patches that > > don't apply but for which the contributor would still like to resume > work. > > Ideally people going through their outbox will have more context for > which > > things definitely don't make sense to keep open, so the list of which I > > will have to go through manually will be shorter ;-) > > I think the right thing is to provide people time to take these actions > > themselves. > > > > We will be going through review of the github pull requests (already a > much > > smaller list) in the upcoming week. > > After that I hope the reviewboard list will be significantly shorter and > we > > will be able to go through reviews of the remaining patches with higher > > confidence that we'll be able follow through on them with the > contributor. > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Tomek Janiszewski <jani...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably > can't > > be > > > applied, CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on that > > review > > > we can close it. > > > > > > śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere < > jo...@apache.org > > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > > Hello developers, > > > > > > > > Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog. > Over > > > the > > > > past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews. > > > > > > > > It would be of great help if you could look through your personal > list > > > > (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no > > longer > > > > relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*. > > > > > > > > Suggested actions: > > > > *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining > > why. > > > > For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already. > > > > *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you > are > > > not > > > > actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone picks > it > > > up > > > > in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review > > would > > > > be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous > effort. > > > > > > > > Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this > was > > > not > > > > accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This will > > help > > > > guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all > > working > > > > on. > > > > > > > > Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time > has > > > > passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are categorized > as > > > > above with a note on how to re-open them. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Joris > > > > > > > > > >
