> On Dec 15, 2021, at 1:11 PM, Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced by having a blanket policy here.
>
> In several cases, these PRs carried some very valuable ideas that
> still needed some work to get merged. By using blanket close, we'd be
> losing all that context and we should not do that.
Is #3267 Support set publish time on broker side one of those very valuable
ideas that was later rejected, likely for performance reasons?
>
> What would actually be helpful, is help in reviewing these old PRs to
> identify what is either already rejected or superseded by other
> changes and what just needs some help to get completed.
>
> Just declaring PR bankrupticity alone won't solve the problem of why
> more PRs are created than reviewers can review.
>
>
> Matteo
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> <matteo.me...@gmail.com>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:05 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am +1 for closing PRs that are over a year old.
>>
>> Does anyone else in the community have thoughts on these old PRs?
>> Getting consensus and creating a process here could help make our
>> committers more efficient.
>>
>> - Michael
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> I don't think I understand tison's objection to closing very stale PRs
>>> automatically -- if it's gone that long without attention the situation
>>> isn't likely to change. And the submitter can always reopen it if it's
>>> still relevant.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:17 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that any Pulsar committer ought to close any PR that is more than
>>>> one year old. That would clear about 75 from the backlog. The OP should be
>>>> informed and if they are still interested then they can discuss it here.
>>>>
>>>> So when a stale PR is closed we should suggest that the OP subscribe to
>>>> and email dev@pulsar.apache.org to discuss the PR.
>>>>
>>>> All the Best,
>>>> Dave
>>>> .
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2021, at 9:17 AM, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From my experience, any process won't work. The only way is to inspire
>>>> more
>>>>> reviewers act on PRs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of talking about how to do it, reviewing one PR now can help the
>>>>> case.
>>>>> Also, it's reasonable to close inactive PR if there is a successor. But
>>>> do
>>>>> not let
>>>>> a bot do it, which will create many corner (bad) cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> tison.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> 于2021年12月4日周六 00:57写道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Pulsar Community,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am excited to start contributing as a committer! I have a question
>>>>>> about our process for closing stale PRs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have ~300 open PRs right now. Do we have any guidelines on closing
>>>>>> stale PRs? Of course we don't want to ignore important bug fixes, but
>>>>>> we also don't want to clutter our repo with open PRs that won't get
>>>> merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, I reviewed this PR [0] about 3 months ago. The
>>>>>> contributor has not yet responded to my feedback and it doesn't seem
>>>>>> to fix an actual bug, so I think it is a candidate for closure. Here
>>>>>> is another example [1]. I closed this one because it had merge
>>>>>> conflicts with a commit that fixed the same underlying issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that our committer guidelines [2] do not provide guidance on this
>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/11237
>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/11162
>>>>>> [2] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Committer-Guide
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Ellis
>>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>>> @spyced
