My experience is that it takes a good amount of time to review PRs and a good portion of my time spent contributing to this project is by reviewing PRs. I currently have 3 out of 10 PRs that are older then 2 weeks so in my experience pinging people to about progress has been pretty effective. Out of those older PRs, 2 of those PRs I have heard back from the authors and that they would attempt to get back to it soon.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > We have hit 100 open pull requests today*. It is an arbitrary number, but a > good excuse to note the upward trend. In part, I think it is simply having > more changes happening, which is cool. But it is also due to review > latency. Sorting by "last updated" the first two pages range from 6+ months > to 16 days ago. > > We may, first of all, need a sweep to close stalled / no-go PRs. > > After that, having a triage process where someone drops in on PRs and asks > "any update?" has not been terrifically helpful in my experience (and also > obscures how stale PRs are) but is perhaps the most active measure we've > taken in the past. > > Gitbox will probably make it easier to see who is requested to review a PR > and whether it is waiting on the reviewer or the author. That may help. > > Any other thoughts? > > Kenn > > *I'm part of the problem; 16 of them contain the phrase "R: @kennknowles" > and I also have ~4 outgoing PRs that have stalled >
