>For example, by enforcing that all changes are
merged only through PRs. That, however, means that all contributors are
forced to work with GitHub, which is not necessarily a great thing.
I think we had this flow in mind when Ignite was started. I don't see any
issue with forking unless prs can
Petr,
Any suggestions on how to fix this? One of the ideas that come to my mind
is to unify the process. For example, by enforcing that all changes are
merged only through PRs. That, however, means that all contributors are
forced to work with GitHub, which is not necessarily a great thing.
I'd guess that one of the main problem with inactive PRs is in creation of PR
for reviewing but merging it from command line (not via GitHub interface).
Also, of course, there are lots of efforts which are abandoned after first
review, or even do not have a chance to be reviewed at all.
> On
I think we need to be able answer the question “Why are there so many inactive
PRs?" before we automate their removal. If perfectly good changes are being
ignored, we have a problem.
Removing branches of merged PRs and protecting the main branch make sense.
> On 20 Feb 2021, at 18:30, Pavel
+1
- Close inactive PRs (1 month or so?)
- Enable main branch protection (no force pushes, require linear history,
require status checks)
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 2:31 PM Petr Ivanov wrote:
> Hi, Igniters!
>
>
> When we started Ignite 3.x in new repository, not only we have received a
> chance
Hi, Igniters!
When we started Ignite 3.x in new repository, not only we have received a
chance to cleanup codebase, but to maintain some order in development tools,
like GitHub.
Currently in 2.x repository we have lots of stalled PRs and branches, which not
only clog the repository, but also
