While I agree that autoclosing PRs can be unwelcoming. I don't see clearly the argument of INFRA in the ticket.
> The policy of no-write-access for bots is a requirement by the foundation > legal team. We cannot allow write access to repos without an ICLA. Labeling and closing the PR in github does not imply write-access from the bot into the 'real' gitbox repository, so I don't see how this can be an issue, or are we in a gray area (in case bot automation of metadata can have legal issues which I doubt since this is not part of the source distribution). As a precedent we had Probot/Stale enabled for Apache Beam so I suppose that this should be possible for Airflow too. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16589 On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:55 PM Sid Anand <san...@apache.org> wrote: > > Apache Airflow has, at any point, >200 PRs open. During the slower summer > months, we've been merging 100-200 PRs a month. We have been growing the > community -- we have <600 contributors, ~200 companies using it, and 20+ > committers. A person is promoted to "Committer" in recognition for work > he/she has done without an expectation of future work in maintaining the > code base. Hence, minting new committers doesn't always translate into > greater bench strength where merging PRs is concerned. That said, we are > actively adding new committers. The last 4-5 committers we added have been > super active maintainers, so the coverage on PRs and questions has been > getting better. > > There are many causes of Cold-case PRs: > > 1. Submitter is not actively responding > 1. One example is that we requested tests and they were never written > 2. Discussion ensued on the PR and the submitter did not accept the > community's feedback > 2. Committers didn't get to it in a timely manner and after a while the > engagement fell > > We are in a better position now to handle (2) -- this was not the case a > year ago. We're at least able to keep up with our in-flow of PRs > week-to-week, but are still having challenges with the > previously-established backlog. But, (1) is also a contributor to stale PRs. > > We do have a lot of stale PRs to manually handle -- I spent all of Summer > 2017 pinging submitters of old PRs and I find myself in the same position > now. > > Probot/stale is a useful tool. It has legitimate use-cases. A policy > reflects the health/mentality/approaches of the community. A tool like this > enforces the policy. Let's not overlook adoption of what would be a very > useful tool to the community due to a meta conversation about policy. I > think everyone on this list cares about growing a healthy and vibrant > community. We also care about being efficient with our spare time. This > tools can help us manage both. > > Also, I am not suggesting that we close JIRA, just stale PRs. JIRAs need to > be kept open so we don't lose visibility of bugs/features/etc... This tool > doesn't handle JIRA closing anyway. > > -s > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:37 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 12/09/18 19:16, Sid Anand wrote: > > > A stale PR is defined by a policy -- for example, 60 days without any > > > movement on the PR. > > > > Automatically closing such issues is not going to do anything to aid > > community building and is likely to actively damage such efforts. > > > > > Stale PRs would be bad experiences in general for community members, but > > > after no movement for 60 days, this is just about cleaning up PRs that > > are > > > not getting feedback from the committers or PR submitters. > > > > That is the wrong solution the problem. > > > > If reporters of issues are not responding to questions and there is > > genuinely nothing the community can do to progress the issue without > > their input then closing the issue is fair enough. But that should very > > much be the exception rather than the rule. In projects I am involved in > > I probably do that a handful of times a year. However, even in a good > > chunk of those cases, the main reason for the lack of response from the > > OP is that the community did not respond to the original report for an > > excessively long time. > > > > If the committers are not responding to issues in a timely manner then > > the solution is to start looking for more committers. > > > > Reporting an issue is often the first interaction someone new to the > > community has with the project. It should be treated as an opportunity > > to attract new members to the community and to grow the project. > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > -s > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:58 AM Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi - > > >> > > >> I was pointing out a potential community problem which is what we are > > >> about here in the Incubator. > > >> > > >> On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Sid Anand <san...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> A stale PR has not activity for some length of time. > > >> https://github.com/probot/stale > > >> > > >> The policy file example shown on that link it pretty easy to follow, so > > >> I'll avoid pasting a wall of text into this email. > > >> > > >> This seems like a pretty valuable and much-needed piece of management-y > > >> software. Unfortunately, I was informed Apache Infra could not grant > > write > > >> perms to this GitHub plugin. I'd like to understand how we decide which > > >> plugins on GitHub get whitelisted? > > >> > > >> > > >> The Incubator does not make these decisions. The Apache Infrastructure > > >> team makes these. > > >> > > >> You can contact Infra - https://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Dave > > >> > > >> > > >> -s > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:39 AM Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi - > > >> > > >> What if the stale PR is from a new community member who is trying to > > make > > >> a contribution? Those should be handled by a committer with direct > > >> discussion. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Dave > > >> > > >> Sent from my iPhone > > >> > > >> On Sep 11, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Hagay Lupesko <lupe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Im also interested in this PR policy automation. > > >> > > >> For Apache MXNet, there is no automation that I am aware of that handles > > >> that. And it can be super helpful in handling stale PRs... > > >> > > >> Hagay > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 12:07 Sid Anand <san...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Folks! > > >> I wanted a policy-driven approach to automatically label, comment, and > > >> close inactive/stale PRs. Probot does this, but need some write perms to > > >> GitHub. > > >> > > >> https://github.com/probot/stale > > >> > > >> I just learned this is not possible per > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17005 > > >> > > >> How are other projects solving this problem? And why is probot not on > > >> > > >> say > > >> > > >> an approved list of GitHub integrations? > > >> > > >> -s > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
