*committers (and not reviewers) On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:13 PM Paulo Motta <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I am not sure why it is so hard for people to not forget to close a PR > when their branch is merged. > > I wonder if reviewers* know they need to append the message "Closes > #PR_ID" to the end of the commit message to have the PR be closed, this > does not seem very obvious, but it's also a bit inconvenient. > > Since Apache INFRA already links github PRs to the appropriate JIRA, it > would probably not be very hard to have the PR be closed when the JIRA is > resolved. If this does not sound stupid perhaps we could submit an INFRA > feature request to address this issue. > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 3:17 AM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
