GSoC has played a very significant role in the history of SymPy. I don't think that can be understated. We have always gotten lots of poor quality contributions and interactions during the annual application phase. AI slop causes a rise in this.
We should have some careful deliberation before deciding to not participate in GSoC in the future. My opinion is that GSoC results reflect proportionally the time/quality of mentorship in most cases. Jason moorepants.info +01 530-601-9791 On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 8:28 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Would a ‚time based closure’ not be close to no 2, weakened to something > like *likely not to be merged*? > > If a PR was really excellent, would it not be looked at by somebody in > good time? > > > > Oscar made an additional point about GSoC > > I am convinced that the flood of low level (Oscar’s judgement. I do not > have the skills to judge them) PRs is due to the fact that the submitters > want to participate in GSoC. > > I cannot judge the pros of sympy being “in” GSoC vs. the drawback of the > flood of PRs, but surely the experts must have opinions based on their > experience on this question. > > > > Peter > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jason > Moore > *Sent:* Sunday, February 1, 2026 7:53 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [sympy] AI generated pull requests > > > > In the past we've used the "closed" designation on a PR to mean: 1) this > is merged into master and 2) this will definitely not be merged into > master. If we close PRs based on inactivity time, then we have PRs labeled > "closed" which are neither 1 or 2, they still have the state "could be or > might be merged to master or might be rejected" but now we've labeled them > with "closed" which would seemingly imply 1 or 2. So it seems to me if you > close based on inactivity time, then the meaning of "open" or "closed" PR > no longer has distinct meanings. > > > > Jason > > moorepants.info > +01 530-601-9791 > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 3:53 AM '[email protected]' via sympy < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I like Oscar's idea of a pre-warning that the PR will be closed in a month > with suggestions about things to check if the author wishes to pursue > getting the PR merged. I can understand from the maintainers' view not > wanting the time frame for automatic closure of to be too long. > > > > I only have short bursts of time I can spend contributing to the various > open-source projects I am involved in, so am likely to have PRs that would > not be completed in a two month time frame. However, from my perspective > that could easily be worked around by opening a new PR referring back to > the old one, when I am able to cycle back around to work on it again. Thus, > I think that having PRs that I am continuing to work on closed after 2 > months of inactivity would be fine. It is unlikely to deter me from > continuing on projects I am interested in over the long term. I do think > the shorter time frame will clean up the repo and may be effective at > discouraging people who are not truly serious about working on sympy. > > > > I strongly suggest that automatic closure of PRs after a period of > inactivity be implemented. From my perspective as a sometime contributor, I > am not sure that the time frame matters as much as the fact that it should > happen. The time frame should be chosen to work best for the development > cycle the core maintainers can manage. > > > > Jonathan > > > > On Saturday, January 31, 2026 at 5:10:44 PM UTC-6 Oscar wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 at 22:37, '[email protected]' via sympy > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As a minor contributor, I strongly agree with the idea that PRs without > activity for some period of time should be automatically closed. I am not > sure the core maintainers and reviewers need to be notified. The originator > of the PR should be notified with a message explaining that it was closed > because of inactivity over the last XX period of time. They should be > encouraged to review the PR carefully and decide if they have the time and > interest in adjusting the code so that it meets all requirements for > merging and address any concerns raised in the PR before it was closed. If > so, they should open a new pull request with code updated to pass all tests > when built with the current development branch and refer to the old PR in > case reviewers want to look at the history. > > > > I would be in favor of the period of inactivity being in the range of 6 > months to a year. This would potentially close both pull requests I > currently have open (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/28258 and > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/24574). This seems reasonable, > because although I would be interested in pursuing both of them, the > reality is that my primary job is as a Chemistry Professor/Computational > Quantum Chemist and I am unlikely to have much time for work on either of > these until at least the end of the current semester. I do not object to > opening a new PR or reopening the old one when I get back to being able to > consider the code. > > I'm not sure how this would work in practice but for example if > someone else closes your PR then I think it isn't possible for you to > reopen it unless you are a member (some who can merge PRs). You could > of course comment that you would like to reopen and then a member > could do it and we could make sure that the bot that closes the PR > would leave a message explaining that. > > I'm not sure about 6 months. I think that basically after 1 month of > inactivity the PR is usually forgotten but the amount of time passed > is still small enough that the PR could easily be revived if people > were reminded and actually wanted to continue with it. If all > maintainers simply happened to overlook a PR then 1 month is probably > a good amount of time for there to be some kind of notification so > perhaps a bot could comment then that it has been inactive for 1 month > and then if no one does anything then at the 2 month mark it can be > closed. > > It would probably be helpful for some people if the 1 month bot > message explains some common reasons to the author like "if CI checks > have failed and there are red crosses everywhere then that might > explain why no one has reviewed your PR". This is something that is > more common right now in the AI age that someone has opened a PR with > broken code and then all of the checks have failed but it almost seems > like the author has not seen that all the tests have failed. I would > not generally bother commenting to say something like "as you can see > all the tests have failed" but perhaps after 1 month it might be good > to point that out to the author. > > If we wait longer than 2 months then what are we actually waiting for? > No one is actually going to go back more than 2 months looking for PRs > to review. If anyone wants to revive it further in the future then it > can just be reopened but if no one expresses any positive interest in > doing that then what benefit do we get from keeping a 2 month old PR > in the "open" state rather than the "closed" state? The closed PRs are > still there with all their code and message for everyone to see. > > -- > Oscar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/e5ae466e-1cf1-40db-bfdc-5a8ba525ae5bn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/e5ae466e-1cf1-40db-bfdc-5a8ba525ae5bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1AhcGTF_wTD96CyUFk3uPRpE3d_kxWm3-sW_5dLe20AXVg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1AhcGTF_wTD96CyUFk3uPRpE3d_kxWm3-sW_5dLe20AXVg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/050001dc934c%24551688d0%24ff439a70%24%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/050001dc934c%24551688d0%24ff439a70%24%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1AiwzUZ3ypyy6RE26AKe-Nyr0nOWtU%2BzD7GqJQV7fbH4OA%40mail.gmail.com.
