I am not sure why it is so hard for people to not forget to close a PR when their branch is merged. I stopped "fighting" this and I just run a script every few weeks. Funny that people don't forget to create a PR when trying to make a change but as soon as it is delivered the respective PR is "memory holed". A PR does not close itself if it was not obvious already.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 8:00 AM Bernardo Botella < conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: > Thanks Josh and Stefan for the comments! > > Such a script can definitely be helpful for this purpose of keeping our > house tidy. It seems that the thread hasn’t gotten much steam yet. As this > is, by no means, any urgent matter, let’s give some more time for people to > pitch in. I’ll wait some more days looking for answers on this thread. > Then, if no one has any strong opinion against it, I can start closing old > PRs. > > Thanks! > Bernardo > > On Apr 11, 2025, at 10:22 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I have a small script which scans GH pull requests (their titles) and > looks into JIRA to see what is their status. When it is "resolved" it > prints it to the console. Then I go over the links of PRs and close them > one by one. This relies on the title of the PR to be in exact format > (CASSANDRA-123 a title of the ticket) and not bullet proof but I have not > come up with anything better so far. > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 5:19 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> +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 >> >> >> >
