On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 at 06:53, Jason Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I think that currently open vs closed does not have distinct meanings. Most PRs in the open state should really be in the closed state. It is just that no one has closed them. Even if the PR is closed that is usually because the author decided to close the PR which does not necessarily reflect a decision from the project that the PR was the wrong approach. If we close based on inactivity then an open PR has an objective meaning that there is some recent activity. A PR that is closed would have a message saying that it was closed because of inactivity and then it is clear that that is not necessarily a rejection of what is in the PR. Most of the time the reason a PR has not been merged is not really to do with making a decision about what the PR is trying to do but just because the author hasn't done it properly and at the time when anyone looked at it it was not clear if the author was going to fix the problems or not. There may or may not be a comment from a reviewer explaining what the problem with the PR is. -- 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/CAHVvXxSphOcZ%2BDYen_Z27FtUwcSVmO9iR2S55B%3D%2BYL%2BjNmX_Lg%40mail.gmail.com.
