On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It > is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also > preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look > into it. > Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go into the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's attention. PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion with > a proper comment. > It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done > during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 3 > month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone > who were involved into the review. > Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed. Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move to > gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such > projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if > possible at all. > Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go, so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like 3 months should be fine. Thanks > > Thank you, > > Vlad > > > On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote: > >> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute >> in >> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than >> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months >> would be ideal. >> >> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they >> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go >> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that >> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else >> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on >> it. >> >> Thanks >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is >>> closed. Any objections? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Vlad >>> >>> >
