Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:35:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
To: Syed Ahmed <sahmed@cloudops.com>,
	Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>, dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Aur=C3=A8le_Brothier?= <marco@exoscale.ch>
Message-ID: <1600128808.4748.1501227329960@ox.pcextreme.nl>
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR07MB12057BD50642310747EB2A21E9BE0@DB5PR07MB1205.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <969064371.4451.1500884549117@ox.pcextreme.nl>
 <CAKLH8EZtE=4NyyW0YtgXUYAu2uZXmcwJ9-4DooezA-29Gw4OcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <775613027.4469.1500897317873@ox.pcextreme.nl>
 <CADMzvUpgXBVQjzJ5iKbhs1jLpbWwooDTFLLVNb45tsRsDNLn=Q@mail.gmail.com>,<350409149.4719.1501170459849@ox.pcextreme.nl>
 <DB5PR07MB12057BD50642310747EB2A21E9BE0@DB5PR07MB1205.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Closing old Pull Requests on Github
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Medium
archived-at: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 07:35:46 -0000


> Op 27 juli 2017 om 22:15 schreef Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>:
>=20
>=20
> That's a good idea to use labels to tag PRs. Does it make sense to add an=
 explicit label such as 'closeable' or something more appropriate on PRs th=
at are not getting any traction either from reviewers or from the author th=
emselves?
>=20

Yes, that seems like a good idea. I've created the label 'closable' and alr=
eady labeled a few which were really not seeing attention.

Added this message:

"This Pull Requests just got the label 'closable' for not seeing any activi=
ty for a long period.

The CloudStack project is in a transition from the Apache Foundation's Git =
infrastructure to Github. This has created a very large backlog of PRs. A l=
ot of them don't merge anymore and didn't get attention.

To filter these PRs we are adding the tag closable to them to make a distin=
ction between PRs which need our attention and which are a candidate to be =
closed.

It's not our intention to say that we don't value the PR, but it's a way to=
 get a overview of which PRs need our resources and attention.

If you think closing this PR is a mistake, please add a comment and let us =
know! If you do that, could you please make sure that the PR merges against=
 the branch it was submitted against?

Thank you very much for your understanding and cooperation!"

Wido

>=20
> For the 4.9.3.0 effort, I'm trying to go through several PRs and have clo=
sed few PRs that are not relevant anymore (for example, duplicates, or fixe=
d in a different way in master, or already fixed in master, or not applicab=
le at all etc).
>=20
>=20
> - Rohit
>=20
> ________________________________
> From: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:47:39 PM
> To: Syed Ahmed; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Marc-Aur=C3=A8le Brothier
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Closing old Pull Requests on Github
>=20
>=20
> > Op 27 juli 2017 om 17:13 schreef Syed Ahmed <sahmed@cloudops.com>:
> >
> >
> > I would start by adding a comment to the open PRs to see if the author =
is
> > responsive. If that's the case, then it means that review is need and w=
e
> > can add the "waiting-for-review" tag. There are a few PRs that are in t=
hat
> > state but there are far more out there which need to have this tag adde=
d.
> >
>=20
> Seems like a good suggestions. A new label which we add and a message to =
all PRs.
>=20
> See if somebody responds and then take action later on?
>=20
> Wido
>=20
>=20
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com=20
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>  =20
> =20
>=20
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wr=
ote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Op 24 juli 2017 om 10:47 schreef Marc-Aur=C3=A8le Brothier <marco@e=
xoscale.ch
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Wido,
> > > >
> > > > I have one comment on this topic. Some of those PRs are lying there
> > > because
> > > > no one took the time to merge them (I have a couple like that) sinc=
e they
> > > > were not very important (I think it's the reason), fixing only a sm=
all
> > > > glitch or improving an output. If we start to close the PRs because=
 there
> > > > isn't activity on them, we should be sure to treat all PRs equally =
in
> > > term
> > > > on timeline when they arrive. Using the labels to sort them and mak=
e
> > > > filtering easier would also be something important IMO. Today there=
 are
> > > > 200+ PRs but we cannot filter them and have not much idea on their
> > > status,
> > > > except by checking if they are "mergeable". This should not conflic=
t with
> > > > the Jira tickets & discussion that happened previously.
> > >
> > > Understood! But that's a matter of resources the community has. Each =
PR
> > > needs to be looked at by a volunteer, a committer who all have limite=
d
> > > resources.
> > >
> > > It's not good that PR's didn't get the attention they needed, but it'=
s a
> > > fact that it happened.
> > >
> > > I don't think we have the resources to manually check and label 200 P=
Rs
> > > and see which one can be merged.
> > >
> > > If a author thinks the PR is still valid he/she can open it again. It=
's
> > > not a hard-close as I put in the message, but a way to filter what we=
 need
> > > to put attention on.
> > >
> > > They can be labeled and handled then.
> > >
> > > Wido
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Marco
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.n=
l>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > While writing this e-mail we have 191 Open Pull requests [0] on G=
ithub
> > > and
> > > > > that number keeps hovering around ~200.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have a great number of PRs being merged, but a lot of code is =
old
> > > and
> > > > > doesn't even merge anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > My proposal would be that we close all PRs which didn't see any
> > > activity
> > > > > in the last 3 months (Jun, July and May 2017) with the following
> > > message:
> > > > >
> > > > > "This Pull Request is being closed for not seeing any activity si=
nce
> > > May
> > > > > 2017.
> > > > >
> > > > > The CloudStack project is in a transition from the Apache Foundat=
ion's
> > > Git
> > > > > infrastructure to Github and due to that not all PRs we able to b=
e
> > > tested
> > > > > and/or merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not our intention to say that we don't value the PR, but it'=
s a
> > > way
> > > > > to get a better overview of what needs to be merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think closing this PR is a mistake, please add a comment a=
nd
> > > > > re-open the PR! If you do that, could you please make sure that t=
he PR
> > > > > merges against the branch it was submitted against?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you very much for your understanding and cooperation!"
> > > > >
> > > > > How does that sound?
> > > > >
> > > > > Wido
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [0]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pulls
> > > > >
> > >