You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> on 2018/05/14 14:20:54 UTC
Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Hi all,
Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org. I didn't make a combined
thread because each project should discuss on our own.
I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" infrastructure
(and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / combine
with merge-bot / etc).
The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for
very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
Kenn
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org>
Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
To: <de...@flink.apache.org>
Hey Piotr,
thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
- I like the approach with a notification one week before
automatically closing the PR
- I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
loose traction
We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
(https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
separate thread.
– Ufuk
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
<pi...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge due to
conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them. Especially
there are some PRs which original contributor created long time ago,
someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about it. Original
contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments. Regardless of
the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it difficult to keep
track of things and making it almost impossible to find a little bit old
(for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid and waiting for reviews.
To do something like that, one would have to dig through tens or hundreds
of abandoned PRs.
>
> What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead line,
lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
>
> “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If
you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please
simply write any comment.”
>
> Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually (maybe
with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive PRs - seems
like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we could think about
automating this action. There are some bots that do exactly this (like this
one: https://github.com/probot/stale <https://github.com/probot/stale> ),
but probably they would need to be adopted to limitations of our Apache
repository (we can not add labels and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Piotrek
Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>.
+1 for automatic closing.
The bot can add a comment to the PR with the reminder that the PR can be
revived by the contributor anytime.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Henning Rohde <he...@google.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Agree with Robert's sentiment. For timing, I'd suggest a warning after 3
> months and closure a month later (a week seems a little tight if it
> triggers during vacation/holidays).
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> In terms of being empathetic, it might actually be an advantage for an
>> action like close to be done automatically rather than feeling like a
>> human
>> picked out your PR as being not worth being left open.
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Pilloud <ap...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Warnings are really helpful, I've forgotten about PRs on projects I
>> rarely contribute to before. Also authors can reopen their closed pull
>> requests if they decide they want to work on them again. This seems to be
>> already covered in the Stale pull requests section of the contributor
>> guide. Seems like you should just make it happen.
>>
>> > Andrew
>>
>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first.
>>
>> >> Kenn
>>
>> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Hi,
>>
>> >>> Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
>> >>> the PR ?
>>
>> >>> I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after
>> the
>> >>> warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
>> >>> always open a new one later if it makes sense).
>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> JB
>>
>> >>> On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org
>> >>> > <ma...@flink.apache.org>. I didn't make a combined thread
>> because
>> >>> > each project should discuss on our own.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot"
>> infrastructure
>> >>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things /
>> combine
>> >>> > with merge-bot / etc).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully
>> for
>> >>> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Kenn
>> >>> >
>> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> >>> > From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> >>> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
>> >>> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
>> >>> > To: <dev@flink.apache.org <ma...@flink.apache.org>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hey Piotr,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also
>> saw
>> >>> > it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - I like the approach with a notification one week before
>> >>> > automatically closing the PR
>> >>> > - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
>> >>> > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
>> >>> > loose traction
>> >>> >
>> >>> > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
>> >>> > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
>> >>> > separate thread.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > – Ufuk
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
>> >>> > <piotr@data-artisans.com <ma...@data-artisans.com>> wrote:
>> >>> > > Hey,
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
>> >>> > stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge
>> due
>> >>> > to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
>> >>> > Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created
>> long
>> >>> > time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about
>> it.
>> >>> > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the
>> comments.
>> >>> > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
>> >>> > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
>> >>> > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still
>> valid
>> >>> > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have
>> to
>> >>> > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
>> >>> > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
>> >>> > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
>> >>> > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity
>> occurs.
>> >>> > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a
>> review,
>> >>> > please simply write any comment.”
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
>> >>> > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list
>> inactive
>> >>> > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
>> >>> > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that
>> do
>> >>> > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
>> >>> > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need
>> to
>> be
>> >>> > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add
>> labels
>> >>> > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > What do you think about it?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Piotrek
>>
>
Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Posted by Henning Rohde <he...@google.com>.
+1
Agree with Robert's sentiment. For timing, I'd suggest a warning after 3
months and closure a month later (a week seems a little tight if it
triggers during vacation/holidays).
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> In terms of being empathetic, it might actually be an advantage for an
> action like close to be done automatically rather than feeling like a human
> picked out your PR as being not worth being left open.
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Pilloud <ap...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Warnings are really helpful, I've forgotten about PRs on projects I
> rarely contribute to before. Also authors can reopen their closed pull
> requests if they decide they want to work on them again. This seems to be
> already covered in the Stale pull requests section of the contributor
> guide. Seems like you should just make it happen.
>
> > Andrew
>
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first.
>
> >> Kenn
>
> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>> Hi,
>
> >>> Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
> >>> the PR ?
>
> >>> I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the
> >>> warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
> >>> always open a new one later if it makes sense).
>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
>
> >>> On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> >
> >>> > Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org
> >>> > <ma...@flink.apache.org>. I didn't make a combined thread
> because
> >>> > each project should discuss on our own.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot"
> infrastructure
> >>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things /
> combine
> >>> > with merge-bot / etc).
> >>> >
> >>> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully
> for
> >>> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
> >>> >
> >>> > Kenn
> >>> >
> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> >>> > From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >>> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
> >>> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
> >>> > To: <dev@flink.apache.org <ma...@flink.apache.org>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Hey Piotr,
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
> >>> > it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
> >>> >
> >>> > - I like the approach with a notification one week before
> >>> > automatically closing the PR
> >>> > - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
> >>> > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
> >>> > loose traction
> >>> >
> >>> > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
> >>> > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
> >>> > separate thread.
> >>> >
> >>> > – Ufuk
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
> >>> > <piotr@data-artisans.com <ma...@data-artisans.com>> wrote:
> >>> > > Hey,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
> >>> > stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge
> due
> >>> > to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
> >>> > Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long
> >>> > time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about
> it.
> >>> > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments.
> >>> > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
> >>> > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
> >>> > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still
> valid
> >>> > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to
> >>> > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
> >>> > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
> >>> > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
> >>> > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity
> occurs.
> >>> > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review,
> >>> > please simply write any comment.”
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
> >>> > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list
> inactive
> >>> > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
> >>> > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do
> >>> > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
> >>> > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to
> be
> >>> > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add
> labels
> >>> > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
> >>> > >
> >>> > > What do you think about it?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Piotrek
>
Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Posted by Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>.
+1
In terms of being empathetic, it might actually be an advantage for an
action like close to be done automatically rather than feeling like a human
picked out your PR as being not worth being left open.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Pilloud <ap...@google.com> wrote:
> Warnings are really helpful, I've forgotten about PRs on projects I
rarely contribute to before. Also authors can reopen their closed pull
requests if they decide they want to work on them again. This seems to be
already covered in the Stale pull requests section of the contributor
guide. Seems like you should just make it happen.
> Andrew
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>> Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first.
>> Kenn
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
>>> the PR ?
>>> I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the
>>> warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
>>> always open a new one later if it makes sense).
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>> On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org
>>> > <ma...@flink.apache.org>. I didn't make a combined thread because
>>> > each project should discuss on our own.
>>> >
>>> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot"
infrastructure
>>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things /
combine
>>> > with merge-bot / etc).
>>> >
>>> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully
for
>>> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
>>> >
>>> > Kenn
>>> >
>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> > From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
>>> > To: <dev@flink.apache.org <ma...@flink.apache.org>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hey Piotr,
>>> >
>>> > thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
>>> > it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
>>> >
>>> > - I like the approach with a notification one week before
>>> > automatically closing the PR
>>> > - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
>>> > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
>>> > loose traction
>>> >
>>> > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
>>> > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
>>> > separate thread.
>>> >
>>> > – Ufuk
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
>>> > <piotr@data-artisans.com <ma...@data-artisans.com>> wrote:
>>> > > Hey,
>>> > >
>>> > > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
>>> > stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge
due
>>> > to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
>>> > Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long
>>> > time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about
it.
>>> > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments.
>>> > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
>>> > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
>>> > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid
>>> > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to
>>> > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
>>> > >
>>> > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
>>> > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
>>> > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
>>> > >
>>> > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
>>> > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs.
>>> > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review,
>>> > please simply write any comment.”
>>> > >
>>> > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
>>> > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive
>>> > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
>>> > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do
>>> > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
>>> > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to
be
>>> > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add labels
>>> > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
>>> > >
>>> > > What do you think about it?
>>> > >
>>> > > Piotrek
Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Posted by Andrew Pilloud <ap...@google.com>.
Warnings are really helpful, I've forgotten about PRs on projects I rarely
contribute to before. Also authors can reopen their closed pull requests if
they decide they want to work on them again. This seems to be already
covered in the Stale pull requests section of the contributor guide. Seems
like you should just make it happen.
Andrew
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
> Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
>> the PR ?
>>
>> I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the
>> warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
>> always open a new one later if it makes sense).
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org
>> > <ma...@flink.apache.org>. I didn't make a combined thread because
>> > each project should discuss on our own.
>> >
>> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" infrastructure
>> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / combine
>> > with merge-bot / etc).
>> >
>> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for
>> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
>> >
>> > Kenn
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> > From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
>> > To: <dev@flink.apache.org <ma...@flink.apache.org>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hey Piotr,
>> >
>> > thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
>> > it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
>> >
>> > - I like the approach with a notification one week before
>> > automatically closing the PR
>> > - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
>> > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
>> > loose traction
>> >
>> > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
>> > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
>> > separate thread.
>> >
>> > – Ufuk
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
>> > <piotr@data-artisans.com <ma...@data-artisans.com>> wrote:
>> > > Hey,
>> > >
>> > > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
>> > stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge
>> due
>> > to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
>> > Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long
>> > time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about it.
>> > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments.
>> > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
>> > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
>> > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid
>> > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to
>> > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
>> > >
>> > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
>> > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
>> > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
>> > >
>> > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
>> > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs.
>> > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review,
>> > please simply write any comment.”
>> > >
>> > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
>> > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive
>> > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
>> > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do
>> > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
>> > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to
>> be
>> > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add labels
>> > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
>> > >
>> > > What do you think about it?
>> > >
>> > > Piotrek
>>
>
Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>.
Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first.
Kenn
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
> the PR ?
>
> I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the
> warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
> always open a new one later if it makes sense).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org
> > <ma...@flink.apache.org>. I didn't make a combined thread because
> > each project should discuss on our own.
> >
> > I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" infrastructure
> > (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / combine
> > with merge-bot / etc).
> >
> > The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for
> > very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
> >
> > Kenn
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> > Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
> > To: <dev@flink.apache.org <ma...@flink.apache.org>>
> >
> >
> > Hey Piotr,
> >
> > thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
> > it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
> >
> > - I like the approach with a notification one week before
> > automatically closing the PR
> > - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
> > usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
> > loose traction
> >
> > We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
> > (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
> > separate thread.
> >
> > – Ufuk
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
> > <piotr@data-artisans.com <ma...@data-artisans.com>> wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
> > stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge due
> > to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
> > Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long
> > time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about it.
> > Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments.
> > Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
> > difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
> > find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid
> > and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to
> > dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
> > >
> > > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
> > line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
> > marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
> > >
> > > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
> > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs.
> > If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review,
> > please simply write any comment.”
> > >
> > > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
> > (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive
> > PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
> > could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do
> > exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
> > <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to be
> > adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add labels
> > and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
> > >
> > > What do you think about it?
> > >
> > > Piotrek
>
Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,
Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
the PR ?
I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the
warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
always open a new one later if it makes sense).
Regards
JB
On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Spotted this thread on dev@flink.apache.org
> <ma...@flink.apache.org>. I didn't make a combined thread because
> each project should discuss on our own.
>
> I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" infrastructure
> (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / combine
> with merge-bot / etc).
>
> The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for
> very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
>
> Kenn
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
> To: <dev@flink.apache.org <ma...@flink.apache.org>>
>
>
> Hey Piotr,
>
> thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
> it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
>
> - I like the approach with a notification one week before
> automatically closing the PR
> - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
> usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
> loose traction
>
> We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
> (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
> separate thread.
>
> – Ufuk
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
> <piotr@data-artisans.com <ma...@data-artisans.com>> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
> stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge due
> to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
> Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long
> time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about it.
> Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments.
> Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
> difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
> find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid
> and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to
> dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
> >
> > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
> line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
> marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
> >
> > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
> inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs.
> If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review,
> please simply write any comment.”
> >
> > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
> (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive
> PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
> could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do
> exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
> <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to be
> adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add labels
> and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
> >
> > What do you think about it?
> >
> > Piotrek