> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com > <mailto:pra...@datatorrent.com>> > wrote: > >> >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity >>> (contributor guidelines) >>> >>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a >>> function that github provides that should be used to improve >> collaboration. >>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs >> sitting >>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action >> by >>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then >>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes >>> ready for review. >>> >>> Thomas >> >> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is >> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will >> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments >> will be forgotten and not addressed. >> >> > Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are > requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't > encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking on the committers part.
