Hi Arnav, Sounds good to me!
Best, Jingsong On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 4:08 PM Arnav Balyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >
