Agree I will start to update/review some PRs.
Regards JB On Oct 12, 2017, 21:26, at 21:26, Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: >In the past, Ahmet and I spent some time each week reviewing and >pinging >pull requests. This did not happen the past few weeks due to some >vacations >and travel. I do think pinging is effective for many of the PRs at >least. > >On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Lukasz Cwik <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> 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 >> > >>
