Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first. Kenn
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing > the PR ? > > I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the > warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can > always open a new one later if it makes sense). > > Regards > JB > > On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Spotted this thread on [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. I didn't make a combined thread because > > each project should discuss on our own. > > > > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" infrastructure > > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / combine > > with merge-bot / etc). > > > > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for > > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow. > > > > Kenn > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: Ufuk Celebi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM > > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests > > To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > > Hey Piotr, > > > > thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw > > it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side. > > > > - I like the approach with a notification one week before > > automatically closing the PR > > - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are > > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually > > loose traction > > > > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox > > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a > > separate thread. > > > > – Ufuk > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > > > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are > > stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge due > > to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them. > > Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long > > time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about it. > > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments. > > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it > > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to > > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid > > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to > > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs. > > > > > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead > > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be > > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like: > > > > > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of > > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. > > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, > > please simply write any comment.” > > > > > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually > > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive > > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we > > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do > > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale > > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to be > > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add labels > > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub). > > > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > Piotrek >
