Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On 19 January 2018 at 05:19, Karl Palsson wrote: >> But I would not worry about making the lives of contributors >> easier [since they come & go]. I would worry about making the >> lives of core devs easier, since their number is rarely >> changing, and they have to put in the effort. > > An example of wording you may wish to re-examine. This is exactly > why contributors come and go, they're clearly not always as > welcome as you might like to claim they are. > > For the actual issue, I _completely_ understand wanting to close > all the old issues, but given that it's a oneoff, please do it > manually, rather than just blanket closing them all. > > The "auto close after x months" or "auto close when reported > distro has reached EOL" is a _maive_ turnoff for people > reporting bugs and submitting patches. Submitting something, > having it be ignored for x months, and then just closed is > practical yes, but you're going to struggle to get anyone new > permanently like that. > > Sincerely, > Karl Palsson +1000. "Submitting something, having it ignored for x months, and then just closed." Think about it. How motivated would a person be to come back after that? Re-submit in a vain attempt to get someone's attention? What I think is needed is a good janitor. Someone who would not be afraid to merge or close stale issues/PRs. At least in some cases, or maybe in many cases, once person A sets the "Changes requested" label to a PR, all other members with write privileges start treating the PR as the responsibility of person A who requested changes. They, too, would wait for a response from person A. If person A does not revisit the PR for months, the PR becomes stale and there is nothing the contributor can do. On 19 January 2018 at 03:28, Piotr Dymacz wrote: > At least for me, the problem is that GitHub doesn't notify when the PR is > changed (for example author force pushes some changes). I usually ask > authors to ping me (using @username) in a separate comment in PR when the > requested changes are made. Unfortunately, even a direct ping via @username is GitHub's comments does not always work to get a reviewing member's attention. At least in my experience. ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
> But I would not worry about making the lives of contributors > easier [since they come & go]. I would worry about making the > lives of core devs easier, since their number is rarely > changing, and they have to put in the effort. An example of wording you may wish to re-examine. This is exactly why contributors come and go, they're clearly not always as welcome as you might like to claim they are. For the actual issue, I _completely_ understand wanting to close all the old issues, but given that it's a oneoff, please do it manually, rather than just blanket closing them all. The "auto close after x months" or "auto close when reported distro has reached EOL" is a _maive_ turnoff for people reporting bugs and submitting patches. Submitting something, having it be ignored for x months, and then just closed is practical yes, but you're going to struggle to get anyone new permanently like that. Sincerely, Karl Palsson signature.html Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
> > I started working on a script, here is how it works. its pretty > much the same for patchwork and github with the difference that > on github we write comments and patchwork we send mails. after > 90 days we send a note saying "it stalled pleases remind folks > and help get it merged" after 120 days we close it with a note > saying "sorry try again, something did not work out". :+1: Great wording, sounds really good. Cheers, Karl Palsson signature.html Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
Hi Val, On 19.01.2018 02:02, Val Kulkov wrote: On 18 January 2018 at 19:49, Alberto Bursi wrote: On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to review and merge their PRs. Github has "labels" for PRs, so I think such timeout should look for "needs changes" label or something like that. See this PR https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/655 (on the right, the red label) -Alberto Problem is, the "Change requested" label does not necessarily mean that the requested changes have not been implemented by the contributors. At least for me, the problem is that GitHub doesn't notify when the PR is changed (for example author force pushes some changes). I usually ask authors to ping me (using @username) in a separate comment in PR when the requested changes are made. There have been cases where a PRs gets labelled with "Change requested", then the contributor makes all changes as requested, and then nothing happens for many months because no one among members with write privileges has the time to review and merge the PR. Agree, it happens. Maybe the script John is working on could help here reminding reviewer/s. -- Cheers, Piotr ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:09 AM, John Crispin wrote: > > > On 19/01/18 08:55, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: >>> >>> On 18 January 2018 at 19:49, Alberto Bursi >>> wrote: On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: > > There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in > openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested > changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will > offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain > only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to > review and merge their PRs. Github has "labels" for PRs, so I think such timeout should look for "needs changes" label or something like that. See this PR https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/655 (on the right, the red label) -Alberto >>> >>> Problem is, the "Change requested" label does not necessarily mean >>> that the requested changes have not been implemented by the >>> contributors. >>> >>> There have been cases where a PRs gets labelled with "Change >>> requested", then the contributor makes all changes as requested, and >>> then nothing happens for many months because no one among members with >>> write privileges has the time to review and merge the PR. >>> >> I feel we are complicating things a bit too much before we've even started >> :) >> I think it would be good to start as simple as possible and see what >> other pain-points arise. >> >> Offending people with auto-closed PRs is a potential issue. >> This is already [sort of] happening with delayed PRs/submissions. >> Best I can think of handling this is the wording of the auto-close >> message. >> >> But I would not worry about making the lives of contributors easier >> [since they come & go]. >> I would worry about making the lives of core devs easier, since their >> number is rarely changing, and they have to put in the effort. > > > I started working on a script, here is how it works. its pretty much the > same for patchwork and github with the difference that on github we write > comments and patchwork we send mails. > after 90 days we send a note saying "it stalled pleases remind folks and > help get it merged" after 120 days we close it with a note saying "sorry try > again, something did not work out". after "sorry try again, something did not work out". it could also add: "it's not you, it's me" > > John > > > ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On 19/01/18 08:55, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: On 18 January 2018 at 19:49, Alberto Bursi wrote: On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to review and merge their PRs. Github has "labels" for PRs, so I think such timeout should look for "needs changes" label or something like that. See this PR https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/655 (on the right, the red label) -Alberto Problem is, the "Change requested" label does not necessarily mean that the requested changes have not been implemented by the contributors. There have been cases where a PRs gets labelled with "Change requested", then the contributor makes all changes as requested, and then nothing happens for many months because no one among members with write privileges has the time to review and merge the PR. I feel we are complicating things a bit too much before we've even started :) I think it would be good to start as simple as possible and see what other pain-points arise. Offending people with auto-closed PRs is a potential issue. This is already [sort of] happening with delayed PRs/submissions. Best I can think of handling this is the wording of the auto-close message. But I would not worry about making the lives of contributors easier [since they come & go]. I would worry about making the lives of core devs easier, since their number is rarely changing, and they have to put in the effort. I started working on a script, here is how it works. its pretty much the same for patchwork and github with the difference that on github we write comments and patchwork we send mails. after 90 days we send a note saying "it stalled pleases remind folks and help get it merged" after 120 days we close it with a note saying "sorry try again, something did not work out". John ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: > On 18 January 2018 at 19:49, Alberto Bursi wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: >>> >>> There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in >>> openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested >>> changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will >>> offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain >>> only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to >>> review and merge their PRs. >> >> >> Github has "labels" for PRs, so I think such timeout should look for "needs >> changes" label or something like that. >> >> See this PR https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/655 (on the right, the >> red label) >> >> -Alberto > > Problem is, the "Change requested" label does not necessarily mean > that the requested changes have not been implemented by the > contributors. > > There have been cases where a PRs gets labelled with "Change > requested", then the contributor makes all changes as requested, and > then nothing happens for many months because no one among members with > write privileges has the time to review and merge the PR. > I feel we are complicating things a bit too much before we've even started :) I think it would be good to start as simple as possible and see what other pain-points arise. Offending people with auto-closed PRs is a potential issue. This is already [sort of] happening with delayed PRs/submissions. Best I can think of handling this is the wording of the auto-close message. But I would not worry about making the lives of contributors easier [since they come & go]. I would worry about making the lives of core devs easier, since their number is rarely changing, and they have to put in the effort. > ___ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On 18 January 2018 at 19:49, Alberto Bursi wrote: > > > > On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: >> >> There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in >> openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested >> changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will >> offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain >> only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to >> review and merge their PRs. > > > Github has "labels" for PRs, so I think such timeout should look for "needs > changes" label or something like that. > > See this PR https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/655 (on the right, the > red label) > > -Alberto Problem is, the "Change requested" label does not necessarily mean that the requested changes have not been implemented by the contributors. There have been cases where a PRs gets labelled with "Change requested", then the contributor makes all changes as requested, and then nothing happens for many months because no one among members with write privileges has the time to review and merge the PR. ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote: There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to review and merge their PRs. Github has "labels" for PRs, so I think such timeout should look for "needs changes" label or something like that. See this PR https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/655 (on the right, the red label) -Alberto ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
On 18 January 2018 at 03:44, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > Hi John, Alex, > > I have no problem with closing / autorejecting open tickets in patchwork > as long as they somehow remain available for future reference. > >> To add here. Would it be possible/desire-able to add an auto-timeout >> to patchwork & github PRs, issues to close after X time ? Maybe make >> it official as part of the submission process. > > I would very much like that and have been thinking about this various > times, maybe it is time to finally implement it. > > I could think of an idle timeout ranging somewhere between 3 to 6 months. Before the automatic expiration mechanism is put in place for Github PRs, I think it is appropriate to draw a distinction between PRs that have become stale because: (1) their authors have not responded to requested changes, and (2) members with write privileges have neglected these PRs. There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested changes in place since many months ago. Auto-closing such PRs will offend the contributors who would see their effort go down the drain only because no one in the LEDE/OpenWrt community had the time to review and merge their PRs. I am not blaming anyone personally here as I acknowledge that efforts to review and merge PRs are voluntary and unpaid. However, as a community I think we are responsible for establishing a mechanism that encourages contributions to the project. ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] patchwork
Hi All, 2018-01-18 1:30 GMT-08:00 Piotr Dymacz : > Hi, > > On 18.01.2018 09:44, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: >> >> Hi John, Alex, >> >> I have no problem with closing / autorejecting open tickets in patchwork >> as long as they somehow remain available for future reference. > > > ACK. > > Would it be possible to send the author short message why the patch was auto > closed/rejected (excluding the auto message from patchwork)? > >>> To add here. Would it be possible/desire-able to add an auto-timeout >>> to patchwork & github PRs, issues to close after X time ? Maybe make >>> it official as part of the submission process. >> >> >> I would very much like that and have been thinking about this various >> times, maybe it is time to finally implement it. For github PRs you might be interrested in https://github.com/probot/stale >> >> I could think of an idle timeout ranging somewhere between 3 to 6 months. > > > Some of us discussed this during the OpenWrt Summit and IIRC we agreed that > it would make sense and is desirable. > > Also, a nice message explaining why this happens, maybe with short list of > what the user can/should do afterwards, would save us time answering the > same questions, especially on GitHub. > > -- > Cheers, > Piotr > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-de...@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
