+1 We should apply it retroactively as well - for any PRs that have not been touched in the last 2-3 months should be closed.
On 6/4/18, 12:48 PM, "Abhishek Girish" <[email protected]> wrote: +1 on the concept of auto-closing stale PRs (based on what we'd define it to be). But, not sure if we'd want to apply it retroactively. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:56 AM Timothy Farkas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all again! > > With the latest batch commit we are down from 148 open PRs to 107. To > prune things down further, I'd like to propose using probot stale > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_probot_stale&d=DwIBaQ&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=zySISmkmM4WNViCKijENtQ&m=TpWuCVbYmGnU09jGSqSNFcB1CcbAYJM5aRH-tw0a1vc&s=fHhVTQBk7IoDXIwyxEQTwiMvUsenpJIJeFpeh_HKLDE&e=. This is a handy github app which > automatically marks old PRs as stale and closes them. This way we can > automatically and politely close PRs that have been inactive for an > extended period of time. > > What are everyone's thoughts on this? > > Thanks, > Tim > > ________________________________ > From: Timothy Farkas <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 11:01:13 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Cleanup Old PRs > > Hi All, > > These are some PRs that were already +1'd by a committer but never merged. > Most have conflicts, some don't even have conflicts. If there are any > volunteers to take these across the finish line that would be great. > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_292&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=6T2Y_mslcnhGM6t5fYAkT1Mt3w2AjwHs2ySTUTjJr54&e= > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_309&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=y87vZ1v67LLrJguhoz3mZRazrJr8KPIKSatjFk1Upns&e= > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_437&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=k0WD3r2gH9nEAYoRZkBkRJAPaZ4qI0M0pqTJ2SR2mJY&e= > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_441&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=LugFzfwxsEbNHdcxXHAalcxUSRrTYwx6qLzcfwh3rd0&e= > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_455&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=jL4kOKrjipWBK2hCYvx9Ndhw7l81izk1hfnepyV1_J4&e= > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_480&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=5Mt1bCi5z_yyXRZGABHX2p4d8Ejba5X9n7HHxVYzFuo&e= > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_drill_pull_652&d=DwIFAg&c=cskdkSMqhcnjZxdQVpwTXg&r=4eQVr8zB8ZBff-yxTimdOQ&m=8lEIkAws5ws0hRlTD16Tg9OXn-3okcDiiTTK0c8syBk&s=kNOi7uwV_1Thu1z0pCEIsy_WbApul65jeYKbBN7yslk&e= > > > > There were also 7 really small documentation changes that I think we can > merge and close. I will follow up with Bridget about those. > > Thanks, > Tim > > ________________________________ > From: Timothy Farkas <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 6:05:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Cleanup Old PRs > > Closed the first round of obsolete PRs. Went from 148 open to 125 open. > > > I observed some other low hanging fruit that could be closed. Specifically > there were some small PRs against gh-pages, half of which were already +1'd > but never merged and the other half of which looked pretty reasonable to me > but never reviewed. So my question is what is the proper process for > merging changes into gh-pages? > > > Paul to kickstart the process of pushing PRs over the line I'll compile a > list of PRs that were +1'd but never merged. Perhaps we can get some > committers to volunteer to update the old +1'd PRs and merge them. > > Thanks, > Tim > > > ________________________________ > From: Paul Rogers <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 4:53:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Cleanup Old PRs > > +1 > > I just learned to ignore the ancient PRs; they were not adding much value. > > If a PR looks like it could be resurrected, we might consider 1) assigning > a committer to help push it over the line, and 2) check back with submitter > to see if they can update it. > > We tried the above a few times over the last couple of years and were able > to finish a couple of otherwise-stale PRs. > > Thanks, > - Paul > > > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018, 2:35:25 PM PDT, Timothy Farkas < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > There are a lot of open PRs. I think it would be good to close some of > them in order to identify the remaining PRs that require action to be > taken. Specifically I was thinking of first closing obsolete PRs and then > see how far that takes us. A PR could be considered obsolete if it is: > > > * Changing code or documentation that no longer exists. > * Adding documentation that is no longer correct. > * Has a note already on the PR that it needs to be closed because > another PR was opened. > > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Tim >
