I wouldn't go for #3 and always require a JIRA for a PR.

In general, I think we should state the best practices for using GitHub PRs.
There were some guidelines but they were kind of open
For example, adding always a link to the JIRA to the description.
I think PRs can have a template as a start.

The other thing I would do is to disable the automatic Jenkins trigger.
I've seen the "retest this" and others:

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:47 AM Wei-Chiu Chuang <weic...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> There are hundreds of GitHub PRs pending review. Many of them just sit
> there wasting Jenkins resources.
> I suggest:
> (1) close PRs that went stale (i.e. doesn't compile). Or even close PRs
> that hasn't been reviewed for more than a year.
> (1) close PRs that doesn't have a JIRA number. No one is going to review a
> big PR that doesn't have a JIRA anyway.
> (2) For PRs without JIRA number, file JIRAs for the PR on behalf of the
> reporter.
> (3) For typo fixes, merge the PRs directly without a JIRA. IMO, this is the
> best use of GitHub PR.
> Thoughts?

Reply via email to