Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion. I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many PRs have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26, 2016. I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we can assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the release. (See https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E and https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E for the discussion of the milestone policy). I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the ones assigned a milestone. Best, Jihoon On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dylanwy...@apache.org> wrote: > Hey folks, > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests? > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke > committers for review. > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it slightly > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031 > > This will: > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any activity > for 60 days. > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed. > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned. > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines for > those if we were to enact a similar process. > > Best regards, > Dylan >
