Yes, I mean "open" for a long time, but I do mean PRs aren't intended to be open for long periods. Of course, they actually stick around forever on github.
I think Reynold did manually close yours, but I was noting for the record that there's also an automated process that does this in response to a request. That has also surprised people in the past. Generally, we have way more problem with people abandoning or failing to follow through on PRs, or simply proposing things that aren't going to be merged. I agree in general with reflecting the reality by closing lots more JIRAs and PRs -- mostly because these are not permanent operations at all, and the intent is that in the occasional case where the owner disagrees, it can simply be reopened. This serves as a reminder that we need to drive all of these things to a conclusion. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <[email protected]> wrote: > On the contrary, PR's are actually meant to be long lived - and a > reference of discussion about review and changes. > Particularly so for spark since JIRA's and review board are not used > for code review. > Note - they are not used only in spark, but by other organization's to > track contributions (like in our case). > > If you look at Reynold's response, he has clarified they were closed > by him and not via user request - he probably missed out on activity > on some of the PR's when closing in bulk. > I would have preferred pinging the PR contributors to close, and > subsequently doing so if inactive after "some" time (and definitely > not when folks are off on vacations). > > Regards, > Mridul > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> There's a script that can be run manually which closes PRs that have >> been 'requested' to be closed. I'm not sure of the exact words it >> looks for but "Do you mind closing this PR?" seems to work. However it >> does seem to mean that PRs will occasionally get closed as a false >> positive, so maybe that happened here. >> >> You can use your judgment about whether to reopen, but I tend to think >> PRs are not meant to be long-lived. They don't go away even when >> closed, so can always stand as a record of a proposed change or be >> reopened. But there shouldn't be such a thing as a PR open for months. >> (In practice, you can see a huge number of dead, stale PRs are left >> open by people out there anyway) >> >> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I am not sure of others, but I had a PR close from under me where >>> ongoing discussion was as late as 2 weeks back. >>> Given this, I assumed it was automated close and not manual ! >>> >>> When the change was opened is not a good metric about viability of the >>> change (particularly when it touches code which is rarely modified; >>> and so will merge after multiple releases). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mridul >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Reynold Xin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> No there is not. I actually manually closed them to cut down the number of >>>> open pull requests. Feel free to reopen individual ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Mridul Muralidharan <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is there a script running to close "old" PR's ? I was not aware of any >>>>> discussion about this in dev list. >>>>> >>>>> - Mridul >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
