+1 Agree with Robert's sentiment. For timing, I'd suggest a warning after 3 months and closure a month later (a week seems a little tight if it triggers during vacation/holidays).
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > +1 > > In terms of being empathetic, it might actually be an advantage for an > action like close to be done automatically rather than feeling like a human > picked out your PR as being not worth being left open. > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> > wrote: > > > Warnings are really helpful, I've forgotten about PRs on projects I > rarely contribute to before. Also authors can reopen their closed pull > requests if they decide they want to work on them again. This seems to be > already covered in the Stale pull requests section of the contributor > guide. Seems like you should just make it happen. > > > Andrew > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > > >> Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first. > > >> Kenn > > >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > 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 d...@flink.apache.org > >>> > <mailto:d...@flink.apache.org>. 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 <u...@apache.org <mailto:u...@apache.org>> > >>> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM > >>> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests > >>> > To: <d...@flink.apache.org <mailto:d...@flink.apache.org>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > 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 > >>> > <pi...@data-artisans.com <mailto:pi...@data-artisans.com>> 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 >
