Mark Thanks for brining this up. I do agree.
We need to probably provide more description on the contributor guide or elsewhere of which aspects makes PRs easier to commit: - They have unit tests which cover core capabilities but if they're cloud service dependent or highly network/disk oriented they have integration tests instead of unit tests for the high risk or environmentally sensitive bits. - They have *thoroughly* reviewed and covered License and Notice updates and are done consistently with the L&N of the rest of the project. - They pass all checks on Travis-CI - If they required manual integration tests that detailed instructions/explanations of external system setup and configuration and test processes is provided. And maybe some explanation of which items are very difficult to get good reviewer help on: - Things which integrate with external systems that are not easily replicated for testing. Consider whiz-bang database StoreIt. If we dont have others aware of or famiilar with the StoreIt system it is really tough to find a good reviewer and timely response. We also need to revisit this as we progress an extension registry mechanism. Thanks On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Mark Payne <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > We do from time to time go through the backlog of PR's that need to be > reviewed and > start a "cleansing" process, closing out any old PR's that appear to have > stalled out. > When we do this, though, we typically will start sending out e-mails asking > if there are > any stalled PR's that we shouldn't close and start trying to decipher which > ones are okay > to close out and which ones are not. This puts quite an onus on the committer > who is > trying to clean this up. It also can result in having a large number of > outstanding Pull Requests, > which I believe makes the community look bad because it gives the appearance > that we are > not doing a good job of being responsive to Pull Requests that are submitted. > > I would like to propose that we set a new "standard" that is: if we have any > Pull Request > that has been stalled (and by "stalled" I mean a committer has reviewed the > PR and did > not merge but asked for clarifications or modifications and the contributor > has not pushed > any new commit or responded to the comments) for at least 30 days, that we go > ahead > and close the Pull Request (after commenting on the PR that it is being > closed due to a lack > of activity and that the contributor is more than welcome to open a new PR if > necessary). > > I feel like this gives contributors enough time to address concerns and it is > simple enough > to create a new Pull Request if the need arises. Alternatively, if the > contributor realizes that > they need more time, they can simply comment on the PR that they are still > interested in > working on it but just need more time, and the simple act of commenting will > mean that the > PR is no longer stalled, as defined above. > > Any thoughts on such a proposal? Any better alternatives that people have in > mind? > > Thanks > -Mark
