>From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could detect a PR is waiting for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify reviewers if possible.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche < jorisvandenboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina > <alessan...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > .. > > My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days > > without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it > > and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it > > merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not > important? > > I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might > often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community, > including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs > can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as > a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally > have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR > is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for > the project. > > And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too > limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a > problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for > the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs > are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't > necessarily the best solution to that problem. > > Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than > letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is > that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision > about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a > human decision. >
