This is a great idea, Mark, thanks for proposing it. 30 days after last review comment seems like a good, enforceable standard.
James On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:29 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
