2018-01-11 22:36 GMT-08:00 Smith, Barry F. <[email protected]>: > > > > On Jan 11, 2018, at 11:40 AM, Patrick Sanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > One idea is to impose a stricter guideline that things on the bitbucket > PR page are things that everyone is actively trying to merge. That way, > maintainers can just look at the bottom of the list to see what's lagging, > instead of having to to work up the list and try to remember which of the > PRs are WIP or proposals or experiments or even abandoned ideas. > > Very valid point. Perhaps we could have some way to convert the > "proposals" to Issues so they are not lost but no longer clog the pull > requests. Or the originator of the pull request (i.e. Jed) could kindly > remove the pull request by converting it to some other archival form. Or at > least label the pull request as Archival as opposed to active. > > Any reason to not just create/select an issue, assign it to someone, and include the relevant branch name in the issue description?
> Barry > > > > > This probably requires an itchier trigger finger on declining PRs which > need substantial work. > > > > A related point is that (as happened with the last PR I made), if a big > edit is performed after the original PR is made or even approved, then it's > not always clear "whose court" the PR is in. Maybe it's better to just make > a new PR in this situation. I'm not sure if bitbucket allows you to decline > your own PR (I fear not) - that would make this easier. > > > > 2018-01-11 9:00 GMT-08:00 Smith, Barry F. <[email protected]>: > > > > what do people suggest to improve it. > > > > We can't have valuable pieces of code going stale in there for > months. > > > > > > > >
