+1 from me. My intuition is that this is a logical consequence of us not using github to merge PR's so they don't auto-close. Which seems like it's a logical consequence of us using merge commits instead of per-branch commits of patches.
The band-aid of at least having a human-in-the-loop to close out old inactive things is better than the status quo; the information is all still available in github but the status of the PR's will communicate different things. On Thu, Apr 10, 2025, at 7:14 PM, Bernardo Botella wrote: > Hi everyone! > > First of all, this may have come out before, and I understand it is really > hard to keep a tidy house with so many different collaborations. But, I can't > help the feeling that coming to the main Apache Cassandra repository and > seeing more than 600 open PRs, some of them without activity for 5+ years, > gives the wrong impression about the love and care that we all share for this > code base. I think we can find an easy to follow agreement to try and keep > things a bit tidier. I wanted to propose some kind of "rule" that allow us to > directly close PRs that haven't had activity in a reasonable and conservative > amount of time of, let's say, 6 months? I want to reiterate that I mean no > activity at all for six months from the PR author. I understand that complex > PRs can be opened for longer than that period, and that's perfectly fine. > > What do you all think? > > Bernardo
