Sorry for [Recipient Name] . I wrote (manually) way longer message and "polished it" using AI (i.e. it's 3x shorter than what I wrote) - and I mised that one placeholder Gemini left when reviewing.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 8:50 PM Vincent Beck <[email protected]> wrote: > Respectfully, I disagree. > > I think 5 open PRs is more than needed. I have been contributing to > Airflow for a while and I do not think I ever had more than 5 open PRs at > the same time. So I do not think having a cap of 5 PRs will you slow down > in any way. > > These days the bottleneck is clearly reviewing PRs and not creating PRs, > so I do not think we should consider whether some contributors would like > to have more than 5 open PRs, but whether the community has the capacity to > review more than 5 PRs per contributor. I think the answer is no. I > understand allowing more than 5 open PRs would be an an exception to the > rule (we would only allow-list some contributors), still, I do not think we > need that exception. I would not mind being capped to 5 open PR to be > honest. > > My 2 cents. > > On 2026/09/21 18:34:59 Henry Chen wrote: > > I agree this could discourage contributors from contributing. As a > middle ground, maybe we could maintain a "trust list" to exclude people we > really trust from the limit which, as Damian pointed out, GitHub already > supports natively. That might actually encourage contributors to review > their PRs more carefully, since active contributors who want to do this > right have an incentive to build up their reputation and earn a spot on > that list. > > > > > > Thanks > > Henry > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
