Part of it is how difficult it is to automate this. We can build a perfect engine with a lot of rules that understand everything. But the more complicated rules we need, the more unlikely for any of these to happen. So I'd rather do this and create a nice enough message to tell contributors sometimes mistake happen but the cost to reopen is approximately zero (i.e. click a button on the pull request).
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > bq. close the ones where they don't respond for a week > > Does this imply that the script understands response from human ? > > Meaning, would the script use some regex which signifies that the > contributor is willing to close the PR ? > > If the contributor is willing to close, why wouldn't he / she do it > him/herself ? > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> > wrote: > >> Personally I'd rather err on the side of keeping PRs open, but I >> understand wanting to keep the open PRs limited to ones which have a >> reasonable chance of being merged. >> >> What about if we filtered for non-mergeable PRs or instead left a comment >> asking the author to respond if they are still available to move the PR >> forward - and close the ones where they don't respond for a week? >> >> Just a suggestion. >> On Monday, April 18, 2016, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I had one PR which got merged after 3 months. >>> >>> If the inactivity was due to contributor, I think it can be closed after >>> 30 days. >>> But if the inactivity was due to lack of review, the PR should be kept >>> open. >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For what it's worth, I have definitely had PRs that sat inactive for >>>> more than 30 days due to committers not having time to look at them, >>>> but did eventually end up successfully being merged. >>>> >>>> I guess if this just ends up being a committer ping and reopening the >>>> PR, it's fine, but I don't know if it really addresses the underlying >>>> issue. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > We have hit a new high in open pull requests: 469 today. While we can >>>> > certainly get more review bandwidth, many of these are old and still >>>> open >>>> > for other reasons. Some are stale because the original authors have >>>> become >>>> > busy and inactive, and some others are stale because the committers >>>> are not >>>> > sure whether the patch would be useful, but have not rejected the >>>> patch >>>> > explicitly. We can cut down the signal to noise ratio by closing pull >>>> > requests that have been inactive for greater than 30 days, with a nice >>>> > message. I just checked and this would close ~ half of the pull >>>> requests. >>>> > >>>> > For example: >>>> > >>>> > "Thank you for creating this pull request. Since this pull request >>>> has been >>>> > inactive for 30 days, we are automatically closing it. Closing the >>>> pull >>>> > request does not remove it from history and will retain all the diff >>>> and >>>> > review comments. If you have the bandwidth and would like to continue >>>> > pushing this forward, please reopen it. Thanks again!" >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Cell : 425-233-8271 >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >> >> >
