Re: Policy for stale PRs
> > If a JIRA isn't being meaningfully worked on, it should be > > > > > unassigned > > > > > > > (in > > > > > > > > > all cases, not just if there's an associated pull request > > that > > > > has > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > worked on). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on closing PRs with no action from the original author > > after > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > reasonable time frame (90 days is certainly reasonable; 30 > > > might > > > > be > > > > > > too > > > > > > > > > short) if the author has not responded to actionable > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < > > > > > > > > > sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Some projects I have seen close stale PRs after 30 days, > > > saying > > > > > > > "Closing > > > > > > > > >> due to lack of activity, please feel free to re-open". > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Ahmet Altay > > > > > > <al...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new > > policy, I > > > > > would > > > > > > > > >> suggest > > > > > > > > >> > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and > we > > > can > > > > > > > tighten > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, > how > > > > other > > > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > >> > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a > > good > > > > > > answer. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that > > author > > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > > > >> > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes > > #xyz > > > > > #abc" > > > > > > > > >> message. > > > > > > > > >> > Is there another way to do this? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Ahmet > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur < > > > > aviem...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity > and > > > no > > > > > > > > response, > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > < > > > > > > > > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards > > > > > > > > >> > > > JB > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu < > > > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, > the > > PR > > > > is > > > > > > > likely > > > > > > > > >> out > > > > > > > > >> > > > >of > > > > > > > > >> > > > >sync with current repo. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >Cheers > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay > > > > > > > > >> <al...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale > > PRs? > > > > If > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > >> > we > > > > > > > > >> > > > >come > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open > PRs. > > > Some > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > > >> > > > >PRs > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we > > exclude > > > > the > > > > > > > pings > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > > > >number > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> will be higher. > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not > been > > > > > updated > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > > > >original > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts > to > > > > reach > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > >> (e.g. > > > > > > > > >> > > > >[1], > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ahmet > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
me...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ahmet for bringing this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to close the stale PRs automatically after a fixed time of > > > > > inactivity. > > > > > > > 90 > > > > > > > days is ok, but maybe a shorter period is better. If we > consider > > > that > > > > > > being > > > > > > > stale is just not having any activity i.e., the author of the > PR > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > any message. The author can buy extra time just by adding a > > message > > > > to > > > > > > say, > > > > > > > 'wait I am still working on this', and win a complete period of > > > time, > > > > > so > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > longer the staleness period is the longer it can eventually be > > > > > extended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Thomas the JIRAs should still stay open but should > > > > become > > > > > > > unassigned because the issue won't be yet fixed but we want to > > > > > encourage > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > to work on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other additional subject that makes sense to discuss here is if > > we > > > > need > > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > to avoid 'stale' JIRAs (JIRAs that have been taken but that > don't > > > > have > > > > > > > progress)?, for example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Prevent contributors/committers from taking more than 'n' > JIRAs > > > at > > > > > the > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > time (we should define this n considering the period of > > > staleness, > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > 10?). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Automatically free 'stale' JIRAs after a fixed time period > with > > > no > > > > > > > active work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the objective is to encourage more people to > contribute > > > but > > > > > > people > > > > > > > won't be encouraged to contribute on subjects that other people > > > have > > > > > > > taken, this > > > > > > > is a well known anti-pattern in volunteer communities, see > > > > > > > http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Thomas Groh > > > > <tg...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > JIRAs should only be closed if the issue that they track is > no > > > > longer > > > > > > > > relevant (either via being fixed or being determined to not > be > > a > > > > > > > problem). > > > > > > > > If a JIRA isn't being meaningfully worked on, it should be > > > > unassigned > > > > > > (in > > > > > > > > all cases, not just if there's an associated pull request > that > > > has > > > > > not > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > worked on). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on closing PRs with no action from the original author > after > > > > some > > > > > > > > reasonable time frame (90 days is certainly reasonable; 30 > > might > > > be > > > > > too > > > > > > > > short) if the author has not responded to actionable > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < > > > > > > > > sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Some projects I have seen close stale PRs after 30 days, > > saying > > > > > > "Closing > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
>> due to lack of activity, please feel free to re-open". > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Ahmet Altay > <al...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would > > > >> suggest > > > >> > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can > > tighten > > > it > > > >> in > > > >> > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other > > > projects > > > >> > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good > answer. > > > >> > > > > >> > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will > be > > > out > > > >> of > > > >> > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" > > > >> message. > > > >> > Is there another way to do this? > > > >> > > > > >> > Ahmet > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no > > > response, > > > >> and > > > >> > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > j...@nanthrax.net > > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Regards > > > >> > > > JB > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is > > likely > > > >> out > > > >> > > > >of > > > >> > > > >sync with current repo. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >Cheers > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay > > > >> <al...@google.com.invalid > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If > not > > > could > > > >> > we > > > >> > > > >come > > > >> > > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of > > the > > > >> open > > > >> > > > >PRs > > > >> > > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the > > pings > > > the > > > >> > > > >number > > > >> > > > >> will be higher. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated > by > > > the > > > >> > > > >original > > > >> > > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach > them > > > >> (e.g. > > > >> > > > >[1], > > > >> > > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > >> > > > >> Ahmet > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > > >> > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
>> > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be > > out > > >> of > > >> > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" > > >> message. > > >> > Is there another way to do this? > > >> > > > >> > Ahmet > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no > > response, > > >> and > > >> > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > j...@nanthrax.net > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Regards > > >> > > > JB > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >The proposal makes sense. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is > likely > > >> out > > >> > > > >of > > >> > > > >sync with current repo. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >Cheers > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay > > >> <al...@google.com.invalid > > >> > > > > >> > > > >wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not > > could > > >> > we > > >> > > > >come > > >> > > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of > the > > >> open > > >> > > > >PRs > > >> > > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the > pings > > the > > >> > > > >number > > >> > > > >> will be higher. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by > > the > > >> > > > >original > > >> > > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them > > >> (e.g. > > >> > > > >[1], > > >> > > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > > >> Ahmet > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > >> > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
bq. IRAs should still stay open but should become unassigned The above would need admin privilege, right ? Is there automated way to do it ? bq. Prevent contributors/committers from taking more than 'n' JIRAs at the same time It would be hard to determine the N above since the amount of coding / testing varies greatly across JIRAs. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Ahmet for bringing this subject. > > +1 to close the stale PRs automatically after a fixed time of inactivity. > 90 > days is ok, but maybe a shorter period is better. If we consider that being > stale is just not having any activity i.e., the author of the PR does not > answer > any message. The author can buy extra time just by adding a message to say, > 'wait I am still working on this', and win a complete period of time, so > the > longer the staleness period is the longer it can eventually be extended. > > I agree with Thomas the JIRAs should still stay open but should become > unassigned because the issue won't be yet fixed but we want to encourage > people > to work on it. > > Other additional subject that makes sense to discuss here is if we need > policies > to avoid 'stale' JIRAs (JIRAs that have been taken but that don't have > progress)?, for example: > > - Prevent contributors/committers from taking more than 'n' JIRAs at the > same > time (we should define this n considering the period of staleness, maybe > 10?). > > - Automatically free 'stale' JIRAs after a fixed time period with no > active work > > Remember the objective is to encourage more people to contribute but people > won't be encouraged to contribute on subjects that other people have > taken, this > is a well known anti-pattern in volunteer communities, see > http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > JIRAs should only be closed if the issue that they track is no longer > > relevant (either via being fixed or being determined to not be a > problem). > > If a JIRA isn't being meaningfully worked on, it should be unassigned (in > > all cases, not just if there's an associated pull request that has not > been > > worked on). > > > > +1 on closing PRs with no action from the original author after some > > reasonable time frame (90 days is certainly reasonable; 30 might be too > > short) if the author has not responded to actionable feedback. > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < > > sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Some projects I have seen close stale PRs after 30 days, saying "Closing > >> due to lack of activity, please feel free to re-open". > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would > >> suggest > >> > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten > it > >> in > >> > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other > projects > >> > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. > >> > > >> > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be > out > >> of > >> > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" > >> message. > >> > Is there another way to do this? > >> > > >> > Ahmet > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no > response, > >> and > >> > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > >> > > > > >> > > > Regards > >> > > > JB > >> > > > > >> > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >The proposal makes sense. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely > >> out > >> > > > >of > >> > > > >sync with curre
Re: Policy for stale PRs
JIRAs should only be closed if the issue that they track is no longer relevant (either via being fixed or being determined to not be a problem). If a JIRA isn't being meaningfully worked on, it should be unassigned (in all cases, not just if there's an associated pull request that has not been worked on). +1 on closing PRs with no action from the original author after some reasonable time frame (90 days is certainly reasonable; 30 might be too short) if the author has not responded to actionable feedback. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Some projects I have seen close stale PRs after 30 days, saying "Closing > due to lack of activity, please feel free to re-open". > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would > suggest > > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten it > in > > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other projects > > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. > > > > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be out > of > > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" > message. > > Is there another way to do this? > > > > Ahmet > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, > and > > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > > > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely > out > > > > >of > > > > >sync with current repo. > > > > > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay > <al...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could > > we > > > > >come > > > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the > open > > > > >PRs > > > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the > > > > >number > > > > >> will be higher. > > > > >> > > > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > > > > >original > > > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them > (e.g. > > > > >[1], > > > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > > > >> > > > > >> What do you think? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you, > > > > >> Ahmet > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
IMHO the jira should stay open as it's different from the PR. Regards JB On Aug 16, 2017, 20:16, at 20:16, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >What should be done to the JIRA associated with the PR? > Original message From: Ahmet Altay ><al...@google.com.INVALID> Date: 8/16/17 12:05 PM (GMT-08:00) To: >dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy for stale PRs >Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would >suggest >picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten >it in >the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other >projects >handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. > >What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be >out of >communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" >message. >Is there another way to do this? > >Ahmet > >On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, >and >> as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré ><j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >> > If we consider the author, it makes sense. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> > >The proposal makes sense. >> > > >> > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely >out >> > >of >> > >sync with current repo. >> > > >> > >Cheers >> > > >> > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay ><al...@google.com.invalid> >> > >wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi all, >> > >> >> > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not >could we >> > >come >> > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the >open >> > >PRs >> > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings >the >> > >number >> > >> will be higher. >> > >> >> > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by >the >> > >original >> > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them >(e.g. >> > >[1], >> > >> [2] are such PRs.) >> > >> >> > >> What do you think? >> > >> >> > >> Thank you, >> > >> Ahmet >> > >> >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 >> > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 >> > >> >> > >>
Re: Policy for stale PRs
I think the JIRA should remain open and possibly become unassigned. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > What should be done to the JIRA associated with the PR? > Original message From: Ahmet Altay > <al...@google.com.INVALID> Date: 8/16/17 12:05 PM (GMT-08:00) To: > dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy for stale PRs > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would suggest > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten it in > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other projects > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. > > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be out of > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" message. > Is there another way to do this? > > Ahmet > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, and > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out > > > >of > > > >sync with current repo. > > > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> > > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could > we > > > >come > > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open > > > >PRs > > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the > > > >number > > > >> will be higher. > > > >> > > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > > > >original > > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. > > > >[1], > > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > >> Ahmet > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
What should be done to the JIRA associated with the PR? Original message From: Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.INVALID> Date: 8/16/17 12:05 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy for stale PRs Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would suggest picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten it in the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other projects handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be out of communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" message. Is there another way to do this? Ahmet On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, and > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out > > >of > > >sync with current repo. > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could we > > >come > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open > > >PRs > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the > > >number > > >> will be higher. > > >> > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > > >original > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. > > >[1], > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> Ahmet > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > >> > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
Some projects I have seen close stale PRs after 30 days, saying "Closing due to lack of activity, please feel free to re-open". On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would suggest > picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten it in > the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other projects > handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. > > What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be out of > communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" message. > Is there another way to do this? > > Ahmet > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, and > > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out > > > >of > > > >sync with current repo. > > > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> > > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could > we > > > >come > > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open > > > >PRs > > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the > > > >number > > > >> will be higher. > > > >> > > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > > > >original > > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. > > > >[1], > > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > >> Ahmet > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
Sounds like we have consensus. Since this is a new policy, I would suggest picking the most flexible option for now (90 days) and we can tighten it in the future. To answer Kenn's question, I do not know, how other projects handle this. I did a basic search but could not find a good answer. What mechanism can we use to close PRs, assuming that author will be out of communication. We can push a commit with a "This closes #xyz #abc" message. Is there another way to do this? Ahmet On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, and > as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out > > >of > > >sync with current repo. > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could we > > >come > > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open > > >PRs > > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the > > >number > > >> will be higher. > > >> > > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > > >original > > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. > > >[1], > > >> [2] are such PRs.) > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> Ahmet > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > >> > > >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
Makes sense to close after a long time of inactivity and no response, and as Kenn mentioned they can always re-open. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > If we consider the author, it makes sense. > > Regards > JB > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >The proposal makes sense. > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out > >of > >sync with current repo. > > > >Cheers > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > >wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could we > >come > >> up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open > >PRs > >> have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the > >number > >> will be higher. > >> > >> For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > >original > >> author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. > >[1], > >> [2] are such PRs.) > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Ahmet > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > >> >
Re: Policy for stale PRs
Yea, I think we will need a policy like this eventually, or face unbounded old PRs. I would be OK with closing after 60 or 30 days of silence, too, since all that is needed is a reply, plus they can always re-open. What have other projects done? On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > The proposal makes sense. > > If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out of > sync with current repo. > > Cheers > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Do we have an existing policy for handling stale PRs? If not could we > come > > up with one. We are getting close to 100 open PRs. Some of the open PRs > > have not been touched for a while, and if we exclude the pings the number > > will be higher. > > > > For example, we could close PRs that have not been updated by the > original > > author for 90 days even after multiple attempts to reach them (e.g. [1], > > [2] are such PRs.) > > > > What do you think? > > > > Thank you, > > Ahmet > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1464 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2949 > > >
