That sounds good to me as well. On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 8:57 AM Suhail, Ahmar <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 to this, we did this for Hadoop last year and now close stale PR's > after 100 days of no activity. Iceberg also has something similar. > > On 25/02/2026, 16:55, "Aaron Niskode-Dossett via dev" < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > > > > Great idea. > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:40 AM Arnav Balyan <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > Hi team, > > > > I noticed Parquet java has some stale 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 and friendly for newcomers > and > > reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers. > > > > Would love to know what you think. > > > > Regards, > > Arnav > > > > > > > -- > Aaron Niskode-Dossett, Data Engineering -- Etsy > > > >
