Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

Sorry sent from a different email..

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Lakshmi Velineni 
wrote:

> I was thinking it would be better to update guidelines first as it gives a
> little bit of heads up.
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
>
> > Hi Pramod,
> >
> > Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why it
> > is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR I
> > asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If there
> > are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> >
> > On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >
> >> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs
> >> that
> >> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> >>
> >> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
> >>>
> >>> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it
> in
> >>> a timely manner
> >>> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
> >>>
> >>> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are
> inactive
> >>> for 2 month?
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Vlad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
>  branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
>  provides
>  a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why
>  people
>  will generally miss the old PR.
> 
>  The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
>  (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to
> the
>  original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
>  re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that
> was
>  inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
>  be
>  impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
>  the
>  old patch they (comments) apply to?
> 
>  Thank you,
> 
>  Vlad
> 
>  On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> 
>  If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
> > as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a
> > previous
> > closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding.
> > People
> > will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will
> go
> > through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be
> lost.
> > Also
> > I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs
> > open,
> > two could work.
> >
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> >
> >> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to
> >> remember
> >> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a
> >> committer can
> >> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
> >> closed)
> >> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
> >> process
> >> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
> >> and
> >> not those who do not follow.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Vlad
> >>
> >> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >>>
>  On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>  pra...@datatorrent.com >
>  wrote:
> 
>  On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> 
> > +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> >> (contributor guidelines)
> >>
> >> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it
> >> is a
> >> function that github provides that should be used to improve
> >>
> >> collaboration.
> >
> > PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned
> PRs
> >>
> >> sitting
> >
> > as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> >> action
> >>
> >> by
> >
> > the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
> >> then
> >> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and
> it
> >> becomes
> >> ready for review.
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if
> > there
> > is
> > inactivity. My issue is with the time 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Lakshmi Velineni]

I was thinking it would be better to update guidelines first as it gives a
little bit of heads up.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

> Hi Pramod,
>
> Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why it
> is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR I
> asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If there
> are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs
>> that
>> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
>>
>> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
>>>
>>> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
>>> a timely manner
>>> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
>>>
>>> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
>>> for 2 month?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
 branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
 provides
 a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why
 people
 will generally miss the old PR.

 The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
 (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
 original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
 re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
 inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
 be
 impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
 the
 old patch they (comments) apply to?

 Thank you,

 Vlad

 On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

 If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a
> previous
> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding.
> People
> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
> Also
> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs
> open,
> two could work.
>
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
>
>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to
>> remember
>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a
>> committer can
>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
>> closed)
>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
>> process
>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
>> and
>> not those who do not follow.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
 pra...@datatorrent.com >
 wrote:

 On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>> (contributor guidelines)
>>
>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it
>> is a
>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>
>> collaboration.
>
> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>
>> sitting
>
> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
>> action
>>
>> by
>
> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
>> then
>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
>> becomes
>> ready for review.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if
> there
> is
> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
> people will
> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> context/comments
> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>
>
> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>
 requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
 don't
 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

Hi Pramod,

Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why 
it is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR 
I asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If 
there are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that
fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:


Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to

1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
a timely manner
2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity

Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
for 2 month?

Thank you,

Vlad


On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:


Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github provides
a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why people
will generally miss the old PR.

The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
(remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will be
impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see the
old patch they (comments) apply to?

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:


If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also
I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
two could work.

On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can
recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process
for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
not those who do not follow.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:


On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
pra...@datatorrent.com >
wrote:

On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
function that github provides that should be used to improve


collaboration.


PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs


sitting


as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
action


by


the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
becomes
ready for review.

Thomas


Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
is
inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
people will
create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
context/comments
will be forgotten and not addressed.


Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are

requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
don't
encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.


In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as
opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
will require checking on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Amol Kekre]

Vlad,
I am +1. Do proceed. I am not sure what the process is, i.e wait a day or
so to get folks to give final opinion, or just proceed. Either way, your
call.

Thks
Amol



E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*

www.datatorrent.com


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Pramod Immaneni 
wrote:

> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that
> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
>
> > Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
> >
> > 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
> > a timely manner
> > 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
> >
> > Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
> > for 2 month?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >
> >> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
> >> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
> provides
> >> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why
> people
> >> will generally miss the old PR.
> >>
> >> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
> >> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
> >> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
> >> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
> >> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
> be
> >> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
> the
> >> old patch they (comments) apply to?
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Vlad
> >>
> >> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>
> >>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
> >>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a
> previous
> >>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding.
> People
> >>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> >>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
> Also
> >>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs
> open,
> >>> two could work.
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> 
>  If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to
> remember
>  that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a
> committer can
>  recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
> closed)
>  that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
> process
>  for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
> and
>  not those who do not follow.
> 
>  Thank you,
> 
>  Vlad
> 
>  On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >> pra...@datatorrent.com >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> 
>  +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>  (contributor guidelines)
> 
>  There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it
> is a
>  function that github provides that should be used to improve
> 
> >>> collaboration.
> >>>
>  PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> 
> >>> sitting
> >>>
>  as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
>  action
> 
> >>> by
> >>>
>  the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
> then
>  re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
>  becomes
>  ready for review.
> 
>  Thomas
> 
> >>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if
> there
> >>> is
> >>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
> >>> people will
> >>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> >>> context/comments
> >>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> >> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> >> don't
> >> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> >>
> > In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> > comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a
> new PR as
> > opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that
fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
>
> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
> a timely manner
> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
>
> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
> for 2 month?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>
>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
>> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github provides
>> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why people
>> will generally miss the old PR.
>>
>> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
>> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
>> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
>> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
>> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will be
>> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see the
>> old patch they (comments) apply to?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>
>>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
>>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
>>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
>>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
>>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also
>>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
>>> two could work.
>>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

 If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
 that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can
 recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
 that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process
 for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
 not those who do not follow.

 Thank you,

 Vlad

 On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>> pra...@datatorrent.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

 +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
 (contributor guidelines)

 There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
 function that github provides that should be used to improve

>>> collaboration.
>>>
 PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs

>>> sitting
>>>
 as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
 action

>>> by
>>>
 the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
 re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
 becomes
 ready for review.

 Thomas

>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
>>> is
>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
>>> people will
>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
>>> context/comments
>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
>> don't
>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>
> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR 
> as
> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
> will require checking on the committers part.
>
>
>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to

1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it 
in a timely manner

2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity

Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are 
inactive for 2 month?


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote 
branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github 
provides a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't 
see why people will generally miss the old PR.


The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original 
(remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to 
the original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted 
and re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR 
that was inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided 
as it will be impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without 
ability to see the old patch they (comments) apply to?


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same 
context as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back 
to a previous closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is 
outstanding. People will generally miss the old PR and will either 
not reopen it or will go through it, so its possible previous 
reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t think three months is 
not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.



On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to 
remember that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that 
a committer can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it 
stays open or is closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we 
should try to optimize process for good community members (those who 
follow contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni 
>

wrote:


On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it 
is a

function that github provides that should be used to improve

collaboration.

PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs

sitting
as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for 
action

by
the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and 
then
re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and 
it becomes

ready for review.

Thomas
Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if 
there is
inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most 
people will
create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old 
context/comments

will be forgotten and not addressed.



Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers 
don't

encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor 
comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a 
new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The 
guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one 
of those things that will require checking on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

To clarify - if a committer does not have time to review we can assume 
that he/she also does not have time to close. PR is considered inactive 
when there are review comments that a contributor needs to address and 
there is no activity.


Based on our previous discussion, I assume that contributors should 
proactively reach to committers to ask them to review and merge PRs.


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 21:26, Priyanka Gugale wrote:

Hi,

I am okay with closing inactive PR but timeline should be more than a
month. I have been in situations where for some reason or other the PR was
pending for 2-3 months, sometimes reason was simple as relevant committer
didn't have time to review that time. I will vote for 3 months.

-Priyanka

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amol Kekre  wrote:


I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months
looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time
side; so I am 0+ on either.

Thks,
Amol



E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*

www.datatorrent.com


On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni 
wrote:


If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as
new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.

Also

I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
two could work.


On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember

that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer

can

recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize

process

for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
not those who do not follow.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <

pra...@datatorrent.com >

wrote:


On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is

a

function that github provides that should be used to improve

collaboration.

PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs

sitting

as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for

action

by

the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and

then

re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it

becomes

ready for review.

Thomas

Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there

is

inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most

people

will

create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old

context/comments

will be forgotten and not addressed.



Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers

don't

encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor

comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR

as

opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
will require checking on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Priyanka Gugale]

Hi,

I am okay with closing inactive PR but timeline should be more than a
month. I have been in situations where for some reason or other the PR was
pending for 2-3 months, sometimes reason was simple as relevant committer
didn't have time to review that time. I will vote for 3 months.

-Priyanka

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amol Kekre  wrote:

> I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months
> looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time
> side; so I am 0+ on either.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
>
> E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*
>
> www.datatorrent.com
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni 
> wrote:
>
> > If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as
> > new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
> > closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
> > will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> > through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
> Also
> > I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
> > two could work.
> >
> > > On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> > >
> > > If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
> > that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer
> can
> > recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
> > that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
> process
> > for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
> > not those who do not follow.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Vlad
> > >
> > > On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pra...@datatorrent.com >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > > On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> > > (contributor guidelines)
> > >
> > > There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is
> a
> > > function that github provides that should be used to improve
> >  collaboration.
> > > PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> >  sitting
> > > as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> > action
> >  by
> > > the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
> then
> > > re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
> > becomes
> > > ready for review.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> >  Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
> > is
> >  inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
> people
> > will
> >  create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> > context/comments
> >  will be forgotten and not addressed.
> > 
> > 
> > >>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> > >>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> > don't
> > >>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> > >> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> > comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR
> as
> > opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
> > include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
> > will require checking on the committers part.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote 
branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github 
provides a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't 
see why people will generally miss the old PR.


The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original 
(remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the 
original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and 
re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was 
inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will 
be impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see 
the old patch they (comments) apply to?


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as new 
discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous closed PR to 
figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People will generally 
miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go through it, so its 
possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t think three 
months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.


On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember that 
he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can recollect 
what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed) that was 
inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process for good 
community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and not those who 
do not follow.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni >
wrote:


On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
function that github provides that should be used to improve

collaboration.

PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs

sitting

as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action

by

the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
ready for review.

Thomas

Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
will be forgotten and not addressed.



Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back 
later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to 
finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper 
process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking 
on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Amol Kekre]

I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months
looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time
side; so I am 0+ on either.

Thks,
Amol



E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*

www.datatorrent.com


On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni 
wrote:

> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as
> new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also
> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
> two could work.
>
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> >
> > If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can
> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process
> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
> not those who do not follow.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> > On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pra...@datatorrent.com >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> > (contributor guidelines)
> >
> > There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> > function that github provides that should be used to improve
>  collaboration.
> > PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>  sitting
> > as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> action
>  by
> > the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> > re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
> becomes
> > ready for review.
> >
> > Thomas
>  Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
> is
>  inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people
> will
>  create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> context/comments
>  will be forgotten and not addressed.
> 
> 
> >>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> >>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> don't
> >>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> >> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as
> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
> will require checking on the committers part.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as new 
discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous closed PR to 
figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People will generally 
miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go through it, so its 
possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t think three 
months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> 
> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember that 
> he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can 
> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed) 
> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process 
> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and not 
> those who do not follow.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vlad
> 
> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni >> >
>>> wrote:
>>> 
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> 
> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> (contributor guidelines)
> 
> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> function that github provides that should be used to improve
 collaboration.
> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
 sitting
> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
 by
> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
> ready for review.
> 
> Thomas
 Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
 inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
 create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
 will be forgotten and not addressed.
 
 
>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes 
>> back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as 
>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can 
>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that will 
>> require checking on the committers part.
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember 
that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer 
can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is 
closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to 
optimize process for good community members (those who follow 
contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni >
wrote:


On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
function that github provides that should be used to improve

collaboration.

PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs

sitting

as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action

by

the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
ready for review.

Thomas

Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
will be forgotten and not addressed.



Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back 
later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to 
finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper 
process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking 
on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni  >
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>> 
>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>> collaboration.
>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>> sitting
>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
>> by
>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
>>> ready for review.
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>> 
>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>> 
>> 
> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back 
later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to 
finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper 
process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking 
on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Thomas Weise]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni 
wrote:

>
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> > (contributor guidelines)
> >
> > There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> > function that github provides that should be used to improve
> collaboration.
> > PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> sitting
> > as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
> by
> > the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> > re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
> > ready for review.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>
>
Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> 
> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> (contributor guidelines)
> 
> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> function that github provides that should be used to improve collaboration.
> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs sitting
> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action by
> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
> ready for review.
> 
> Thomas

Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is 
inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will 
create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments will 
be forgotten and not addressed.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> 
>> On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
 is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
 preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
 into it.
 
 Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go
>>> into
>>> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's
>>> attention.
>>> 
>> For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to
>> have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR
>> where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to
>> look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to
>> look into closed and not merged PRs?
>> 
>>> 
>>> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion
>>> with
>>> 
 a proper comment.
 
>>> 
>>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
 during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after
 3
 month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
 who were involved into the review.
 
 Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
>>> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
>>> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
>>> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
>>> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
>>> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
>>> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
>>> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
>>> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
>>> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
>>> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
>>> 
>> If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to
>> address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the
>> PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a
>> code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback.
>> 
>> There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an
>> irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work
>> on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good
>> enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>> 
>> 
>>> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move
>>> to
>>> 
 gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
 projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
 possible at all.
 
 Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
>>> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
>>> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
>>> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
>>> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
>>> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like
>>> 3
>>> months should be fine.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
 
 Vlad
 
 
 On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
 
 I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
> in
> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more
> than
> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
> would be ideal.
> 
> How would this be enforced? Would 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

2 months would work.

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> 
> On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov > > wrote:
>> 
>>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
>>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
>>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
>>> into it.
>>> 
>> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go into
>> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's attention.
> For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to 
> have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR where 
> an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to look into 
> inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to look into 
> closed and not merged PRs?
>> 
>> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion with
>>> a proper comment.
>> 
>>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
>>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 3
>>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
>>> who were involved into the review.
>>> 
>> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
>> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
>> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
>> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
>> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
>> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
>> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
>> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
>> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
>> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
>> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
> If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to 
> address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the 
> PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a 
> code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback.
> 
> There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an 
> irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work on 
> the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good enough, 
> you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>> 
>> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move to
>>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
>>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
>>> possible at all.
>>> 
>> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
>> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
>> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
>> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
>> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
>> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like 3
>> months should be fine.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Vlad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>> 
 I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
 in
 their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
 a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
 would be ideal.
 
 How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
 see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
 with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
 have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
 can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
 it.
 
 Thanks
 
 On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
 
 I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
> closed. Any objections?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vlad

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Thomas Weise]

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
function that github provides that should be used to improve collaboration.
PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs sitting
as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action by
the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
ready for review.

Thomas






On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

> On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
>>
>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
>>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
>>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
>>> into it.
>>>
>>> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go
>> into
>> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's
>> attention.
>>
> For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to
> have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR
> where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to
> look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to
> look into closed and not merged PRs?
>
>>
>> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion
>> with
>>
>>> a proper comment.
>>>
>>
>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
>>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after
>>> 3
>>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
>>> who were involved into the review.
>>>
>>> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
>> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
>> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
>> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
>> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
>> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
>> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
>> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
>> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
>> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
>> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
>>
> If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to
> address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the
> PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a
> code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback.
>
> There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an
> irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work
> on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good
> enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>
>
>> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move
>> to
>>
>>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
>>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
>>> possible at all.
>>>
>>> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
>> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
>> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
>> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
>> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
>> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like
>> 3
>> months should be fine.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
 in
 their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more
 than
 a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
 would be ideal.

 How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever
 they
 see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may
 go
 with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects
 that
 have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone
 else
 can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active
 on
 it.

 Thanks

 On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:


Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
into it.


Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go into
the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's attention.
For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary 
to have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale 
PR where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants 
to look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better 
to look into closed and not merged PRs?


PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion with

a proper comment.



It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 3
month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
who were involved into the review.


Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to 
address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close 
the PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open 
when a code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide 
feedback.


There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an 
irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to 
work on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is 
good enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?


Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move to

gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
possible at all.


Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like 3
months should be fine.

Thanks



Thank you,

Vlad


On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:


I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
in
their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
would be ideal.

How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
it.

Thanks

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is

closed. Any objections?

Thank you,

Vlad

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov]

Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. 
It is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are 
also preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to 
look into it.


PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion 
with a proper comment.


It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done 
during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 
3 month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and 
everyone who were involved into the review.


Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move 
to gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such 
projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if 
possible at all.


Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:

I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute in
their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
would be ideal.

How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
it.

Thanks

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:


I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
closed. Any objections?

Thank you,

Vlad

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni]

I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute in
their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
would be ideal.

How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
it.

Thanks

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov  wrote:

> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
> closed. Any objections?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Ananth G]

I would vote for dead PRs to be ideally closed. 

However, I was wondering if we are being too stringent on the timelines. The 
reason I raise this is in some of the previous pull requests I was told that 
the committer would be merging after waiting for a few days. Since the 
definition of few is not fixed, may I request  we define some timelines for the 
commit time windows as well so that we have sufficient gap between these two 
time windows ? 


Regards,
Ananth 
> On 23 Sep 2017, at 11:48 am, Vlad Rozov  wrote:
> 
> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is closed. 
> Any objections?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vlad