apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR
Date Sun, 24 Sep 2017 22:27:02 GMT
If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as new discussions.
There is no need to remember to go back to a previous closed PR to figure out what was discussed
or what is outstanding. People will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it
or will go through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t
think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org> wrote:
> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember that he/she open
a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can recollect what was discussed on
a PR (whether it stays open or is closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should
try to optimize process for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
and not those who do not follow.
> Thank you,
> Vlad
> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com <mailto:pramod@datatorrent.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>> collaboration.
>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>> sitting
>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
>>>> by
>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>> Thomas
>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back later
to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to finding the closed one
and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one of
those things that will require checking on the committers part.

View raw message