Hi Charles, I prefer to the "timeout" bot, that is a good step. However, some PR may be blocked by another PR, so I recommended that we would up the timeout to 120 days or 150 days.
Thanks. > On Mar 4, 2022, at 22:57, Charles Givre <cgi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Christian, > Thanks for your input. First of all, Drill is clearly a complex system so > PRs do tend to take a long time to get merged. One option might be to use a > bot like stale [1] which automatically closes PRs after a period of > inactivity. > > Personally, I'd set the "timeout" period to 90 days. > Best, > -- C > > > [1]: https://github.com/apps/stale <https://github.com/apps/stale> > > >> On Mar 3, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Z0ltrix <z0lt...@pm.me.INVALID> wrote: >> >> Hi Charles, >> >> what process would you suggest? >> >> I would think some devs are using a PR to keep the work open for memory >> and/or others can discuss it but of course, if its stale for months maybe it >> will never make any more progress. >> Perhaps someone could trigger a comment and ask for further development, but >> who would be responsible for that trigger? >> >> Regards >> Christian >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Am 3. März 2022, 17:54, Charles Givre schrieb: >> >> Hello all, >> I wanted to discuss the possibility of doing a cleanup of open and stale >> pull requests. There seem to be about 10 PRs that are actively being worked, >> then we have a bunch of PRs of various stages of staleness. >> >> What do you all think about having some sort of process for closing out old >> PRs that are not actively being worked? >> Best, >> -- C >> >> <publickey - EmailAddress(s=z0lt...@pm.me) - 0xF0E154C5.asc> >
