Hi Jingsong, Thanks for your reply, makes sense. Maybe to start with, this could be a simple non-invasive comment from the bot to nudge the author and reviewer about the stale activity. The maintainer could decide what to do next. If we see this working well, potentially automated in the future. What do you think?
Thanks! Arnav On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 8:45 AM Jingsong Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Arnav for starting this discussion. > > +1 to "marking a PR as inactive after 3 months of no activity, with 1 > warning at 2 months to inform the author." > > Perhaps we won't automatically close it for now. If there is a PR that > can be automatically closed, we can manually check and close it. > > Best, > Jingsong > > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 11:29 AM Arnav Balyan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi team, > > > > I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have > not > > seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs are > > currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance overhead. > > > > Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example, marking > a > > PR as inactive after 3 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 2 months > to > > inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response. > > > > Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the > > work. This could make the project more clear/friendly for newcomers and > > reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers. > > > > Would love to know what you think. > > > > Regards, > > Arnav >
