+1 for 120 days.
On 2022/03/05 14:09, luoc wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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([email protected]) - 0xF0E154C5.asc>
