>From committers' perspective, would they look at closed PRs ? If not, the cost is not close to zero. Meaning, some potentially useful PRs would never see the light of day.
My two cents. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
