spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcin Tustin <mtus...@handybook.com>
Subject Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:36:29 GMT
+1 and at the same time maybe surface a report to this list of PRs which
need committer action and have only had submitters responding to pings in
the last 30 days?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Holden Karau <holden@pigscanfly.ca> wrote:

> Personally I'd rather err on the side of keeping PRs open, but I
> understand wanting to keep the open PRs limited to ones which have a
> reasonable chance of being merged.
>
> What about if we filtered for non-mergeable PRs or instead left a comment
> asking the author to respond if they are still available to move the PR
> forward - and close the ones where they don't respond for a week?
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2016, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I had one PR which got merged after 3 months.
>>
>> If the inactivity was due to contributor, I think it can be closed after
>> 30 days.
>> But if the inactivity was due to lack of review, the PR should be kept
>> open.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger <cody@koeninger.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For what it's worth, I have definitely had PRs that sat inactive for
>>> more than 30 days due to committers not having time to look at them,
>>> but did eventually end up successfully being merged.
>>>
>>> I guess if this just ends up being a committer ping and reopening the
>>> PR, it's fine, but I don't know if it really addresses the underlying
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > We have hit a new high in open pull requests: 469 today. While we can
>>> > certainly get more review bandwidth, many of these are old and still
>>> open
>>> > for other reasons. Some are stale because the original authors have
>>> become
>>> > busy and inactive, and some others are stale because the committers
>>> are not
>>> > sure whether the patch would be useful, but have not rejected the patch
>>> > explicitly. We can cut down the signal to noise ratio by closing pull
>>> > requests that have been inactive for greater than 30 days, with a nice
>>> > message. I just checked and this would close ~ half of the pull
>>> requests.
>>> >
>>> > For example:
>>> >
>>> > "Thank you for creating this pull request. Since this pull request has
>>> been
>>> > inactive for 30 days, we are automatically closing it. Closing the pull
>>> > request does not remove it from history and will retain all the diff
>>> and
>>> > review comments. If you have the bandwidth and would like to continue
>>> > pushing this forward, please reopen it. Thanks again!"
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@spark.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Cell : 425-233-8271
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau
>
>

-- 
Want to work at Handy? Check out our culture deck and open roles 
<http://www.handy.com/careers>
Latest news <http://www.handy.com/press> at Handy
Handy just raised $50m 
<http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/02/on-demand-home-service-handy-raises-50m-in-round-led-by-fidelity/>
led 
by Fidelity


Mime
View raw message