Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:55:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Aur=C3=A8le_Brothier?= <marco@exoscale.ch>,
	dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Message-ID: <775613027.4469.1500897317873@ox.pcextreme.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAKLH8EZtE=4NyyW0YtgXUYAu2uZXmcwJ9-4DooezA-29Gw4OcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <969064371.4451.1500884549117@ox.pcextreme.nl>
 <CAKLH8EZtE=4NyyW0YtgXUYAu2uZXmcwJ9-4DooezA-29Gw4OcQ@mail.gmail.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: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:55:37 -0000


> Op 24 juli 2017 om 10:47 schreef Marc-Aur=C3=A8le Brothier <marco@exoscal=
e.ch>:
>=20
>=20
> Hi Wido,
>=20
> I have one comment on this topic. Some of those PRs are lying there becau=
se
> no one took the time to merge them (I have a couple like that) since they
> were not very important (I think it's the reason), fixing only a small
> 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 ter=
m
> on timeline when they arrive. Using the labels to sort them and make
> 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 conflict with
> the Jira tickets & discussion that happened previously.

Understood! But that's a matter of resources the community has. Each PR nee=
ds to be looked at by a volunteer, a committer who all have limited resourc=
es.

It's not good that PR's didn't get the attention they needed, but it's a fa=
ct that it happened.

I don't think we have the resources to manually check and label 200 PRs 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

>=20
> Marco
>=20
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wro=
te:
>=20
> > Hi,
> >
> > While writing this e-mail we have 191 Open Pull requests [0] on Github =
and
> > that number keeps hovering around ~200.
> >
> > We have a great number of PRs being merged, but a lot of code is old an=
d
> > doesn't even merge anymore.
> >
> > My proposal would be that we close all PRs which didn't see any activit=
y
> > in the last 3 months (Jun, July and May 2017) with the following messag=
e:
> >
> > "This Pull Request is being closed for not seeing any activity since Ma=
y
> > 2017.
> >
> > The CloudStack project is in a transition from the Apache Foundation's =
Git
> > infrastructure to Github and due to that not all PRs we able to be test=
ed
> > and/or merged.
> >
> > It's not our intention to say that we don't value the PR, but it's a wa=
y
> > to get a better overview of what needs to be merged.
> >
> > If you think closing this PR is a mistake, please add a comment and
> > re-open the PR! 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!"
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >
> > [0]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pulls
> >