Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

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

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

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