[DISCUSS] Stale PR action for flink and flink-kubernetes-operator repos

[Gabor Somogyi <ga...@gmail.com>]

Hi All,

As I see there is no action for stale PRs for flink and
flink-kubernetes-operator repos however almost 1k PRs are open.

I would like to suggest to add new stale PR action based on the following
github plugin:
https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues

I think the default values for the plugin looks sufficient to our needs:
* Add a label "Stale" on pull requests after 60 days of inactivity and
comment on them
* Close the stale pull requests after 7 days of inactivity
* If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the stale
label will be removed and the timer will restart

A playground repo is created to test the feature here:
https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/stale-test-repo

Waiting on opinions/suggestions to make our PR queue manageable.

Thanks in advance!

BR,
G

Re: [DISCUSS] Stale PR action for flink and flink-kubernetes-operator repos

[Konstantin Knauf <kn...@apache.org>]

Hi everyone,

thanks for starting this discussion. I think, the flink-kubernetes and
flink repository are too different (age, size) to draw conclusions from
another. On a first thought, I am not a fan of having different processes
for different repositories inside the project.

The discussion reminds me of the discussion on the flink-jira-bot, which
does something similar as suggested for PRs, but on Jira tickets and with
more relaxed rules.

I am personally unsure what's the best way forward. On the one hand, 1000
Open PRs is daunting both for reviewers and people who open new PRs +
realistically 90% or so will never be merged at this point, because they
are too old and stale. So, letting a bot clean this up, would be honest and
could get us into a situation where Committers are motivated to try to keep
the number low again. On the other hand, closing valid PRs after 60 days
just because no one had time to review it might be unnecessarily
harsh. @Chesnay
Schepler <ch...@apache.org> What were other reasons for not doing this in
the past?

Cheers,

Konstantin





Am Mi., 14. Sept. 2022 um 16:35 Uhr schrieb Márton Balassi <
balassi.marton@gmail.com>:

> Hi gents,
>
> Thanks for the stats Martjin, that valuable insight into the situation.
> Having a large number of open, stale PRs can also result in a bad
> contributor experience down the line, as in my opinion it can reach a point
> where it discourages committers reviewing them as it starts to feel like an
> effort too large to tackle.
>
> Would you be comfortable if we experimented with the approach G is
> suggesting on the kubernetes operator repo to gather some experience and
> shared it here?
>
> Cheers,
> Marton
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 3:42 PM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > We've had discussions about closing stale PRs several times in the past
> > and always rejected it.
> >
> > I see no reason to change this.
> > If you want to close a PR, then do so while informing the contributor
> > about the reason.
> >
> > On 14/09/2022 15:36, Martijn Visser wrote:
> > > Hi Gabor,
> > >
> > > I have my doubts: I think the majority of the open PRs are not open
> > because
> > > of inactivity from the contributor, but I think the majority (at least
> > for
> > > the flink repository) are open because there are not enough reviews
> > > occurring. If we actively mark those as stale and close them, I think
> it
> > > makes a bad impression towards the contributor, since they can't
> > influence
> > > getting a review in.
> > >
> > > Some numbers for the Flink repo: there's now 957 open PRs, of which 839
> > > haven't been reviewed. That's 88%. 91 PRs have been reviewed and
> > > changes have been requested, which is almost 10%.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > Op wo 14 sep. 2022 om 15:30 schreef Őrhidi Mátyás <
> > matyas.orhidi@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Gabor,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd be happy to see such
> > >> automatism guarding our repos. We could start a trial period on the
> > >> operator repo I guess until we have the confidence it's a good thing.
> > Are
> > >> you aware of this plugin being used at other ASF projects? Any
> > pros/cons?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Matyas
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:58 PM Gabor Somogyi <
> > gabor.g.somogyi@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi All,
> > >>>
> > >>> As I see there is no action for stale PRs for flink and
> > >>> flink-kubernetes-operator repos however almost 1k PRs are open.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to suggest to add new stale PR action based on the
> > following
> > >>> github plugin:
> > >>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the default values for the plugin looks sufficient to our
> > needs:
> > >>> * Add a label "Stale" on pull requests after 60 days of inactivity
> and
> > >>> comment on them
> > >>> * Close the stale pull requests after 7 days of inactivity
> > >>> * If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the
> > stale
> > >>> label will be removed and the timer will restart
> > >>>
> > >>> A playground repo is created to test the feature here:
> > >>> https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/stale-test-repo
> > >>>
> > >>> Waiting on opinions/suggestions to make our PR queue manageable.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks in advance!
> > >>>
> > >>> BR,
> > >>> G
> > >>>
> >
> >
>


-- 
https://twitter.com/snntrable
https://github.com/knaufk

Re: [DISCUSS] Stale PR action for flink and flink-kubernetes-operator repos

[Márton Balassi <ba...@gmail.com>]

Hi gents,

Thanks for the stats Martjin, that valuable insight into the situation.
Having a large number of open, stale PRs can also result in a bad
contributor experience down the line, as in my opinion it can reach a point
where it discourages committers reviewing them as it starts to feel like an
effort too large to tackle.

Would you be comfortable if we experimented with the approach G is
suggesting on the kubernetes operator repo to gather some experience and
shared it here?

Cheers,
Marton

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 3:42 PM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org> wrote:

> We've had discussions about closing stale PRs several times in the past
> and always rejected it.
>
> I see no reason to change this.
> If you want to close a PR, then do so while informing the contributor
> about the reason.
>
> On 14/09/2022 15:36, Martijn Visser wrote:
> > Hi Gabor,
> >
> > I have my doubts: I think the majority of the open PRs are not open
> because
> > of inactivity from the contributor, but I think the majority (at least
> for
> > the flink repository) are open because there are not enough reviews
> > occurring. If we actively mark those as stale and close them, I think it
> > makes a bad impression towards the contributor, since they can't
> influence
> > getting a review in.
> >
> > Some numbers for the Flink repo: there's now 957 open PRs, of which 839
> > haven't been reviewed. That's 88%. 91 PRs have been reviewed and
> > changes have been requested, which is almost 10%.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > Op wo 14 sep. 2022 om 15:30 schreef Őrhidi Mátyás <
> matyas.orhidi@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hi Gabor,
> >>
> >> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd be happy to see such
> >> automatism guarding our repos. We could start a trial period on the
> >> operator repo I guess until we have the confidence it's a good thing.
> Are
> >> you aware of this plugin being used at other ASF projects? Any
> pros/cons?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Matyas
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:58 PM Gabor Somogyi <
> gabor.g.somogyi@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> As I see there is no action for stale PRs for flink and
> >>> flink-kubernetes-operator repos however almost 1k PRs are open.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to suggest to add new stale PR action based on the
> following
> >>> github plugin:
> >>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues
> >>>
> >>> I think the default values for the plugin looks sufficient to our
> needs:
> >>> * Add a label "Stale" on pull requests after 60 days of inactivity and
> >>> comment on them
> >>> * Close the stale pull requests after 7 days of inactivity
> >>> * If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the
> stale
> >>> label will be removed and the timer will restart
> >>>
> >>> A playground repo is created to test the feature here:
> >>> https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/stale-test-repo
> >>>
> >>> Waiting on opinions/suggestions to make our PR queue manageable.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance!
> >>>
> >>> BR,
> >>> G
> >>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Stale PR action for flink and flink-kubernetes-operator repos

[Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>]

We've had discussions about closing stale PRs several times in the past 
and always rejected it.

I see no reason to change this.
If you want to close a PR, then do so while informing the contributor 
about the reason.

On 14/09/2022 15:36, Martijn Visser wrote:
> Hi Gabor,
>
> I have my doubts: I think the majority of the open PRs are not open because
> of inactivity from the contributor, but I think the majority (at least for
> the flink repository) are open because there are not enough reviews
> occurring. If we actively mark those as stale and close them, I think it
> makes a bad impression towards the contributor, since they can't influence
> getting a review in.
>
> Some numbers for the Flink repo: there's now 957 open PRs, of which 839
> haven't been reviewed. That's 88%. 91 PRs have been reviewed and
> changes have been requested, which is almost 10%.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Martijn
>
> Op wo 14 sep. 2022 om 15:30 schreef Őrhidi Mátyás <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Gabor,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd be happy to see such
>> automatism guarding our repos. We could start a trial period on the
>> operator repo I guess until we have the confidence it's a good thing. Are
>> you aware of this plugin being used at other ASF projects? Any pros/cons?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Matyas
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:58 PM Gabor Somogyi <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> As I see there is no action for stale PRs for flink and
>>> flink-kubernetes-operator repos however almost 1k PRs are open.
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest to add new stale PR action based on the following
>>> github plugin:
>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues
>>>
>>> I think the default values for the plugin looks sufficient to our needs:
>>> * Add a label "Stale" on pull requests after 60 days of inactivity and
>>> comment on them
>>> * Close the stale pull requests after 7 days of inactivity
>>> * If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the stale
>>> label will be removed and the timer will restart
>>>
>>> A playground repo is created to test the feature here:
>>> https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/stale-test-repo
>>>
>>> Waiting on opinions/suggestions to make our PR queue manageable.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> G
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Stale PR action for flink and flink-kubernetes-operator repos

[Martijn Visser <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi Gabor,

I have my doubts: I think the majority of the open PRs are not open because
of inactivity from the contributor, but I think the majority (at least for
the flink repository) are open because there are not enough reviews
occurring. If we actively mark those as stale and close them, I think it
makes a bad impression towards the contributor, since they can't influence
getting a review in.

Some numbers for the Flink repo: there's now 957 open PRs, of which 839
haven't been reviewed. That's 88%. 91 PRs have been reviewed and
changes have been requested, which is almost 10%.

Best regards,

Martijn

Op wo 14 sep. 2022 om 15:30 schreef Őrhidi Mátyás <ma...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Gabor,
>
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd be happy to see such
> automatism guarding our repos. We could start a trial period on the
> operator repo I guess until we have the confidence it's a good thing. Are
> you aware of this plugin being used at other ASF projects? Any pros/cons?
>
> Cheers,
> Matyas
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:58 PM Gabor Somogyi <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > As I see there is no action for stale PRs for flink and
> > flink-kubernetes-operator repos however almost 1k PRs are open.
> >
> > I would like to suggest to add new stale PR action based on the following
> > github plugin:
> > https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues
> >
> > I think the default values for the plugin looks sufficient to our needs:
> > * Add a label "Stale" on pull requests after 60 days of inactivity and
> > comment on them
> > * Close the stale pull requests after 7 days of inactivity
> > * If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the stale
> > label will be removed and the timer will restart
> >
> > A playground repo is created to test the feature here:
> > https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/stale-test-repo
> >
> > Waiting on opinions/suggestions to make our PR queue manageable.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > BR,
> > G
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Stale PR action for flink and flink-kubernetes-operator repos

[Őrhidi Mátyás <ma...@gmail.com>]

Hi Gabor,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd be happy to see such
automatism guarding our repos. We could start a trial period on the
operator repo I guess until we have the confidence it's a good thing. Are
you aware of this plugin being used at other ASF projects? Any pros/cons?

Cheers,
Matyas


On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:58 PM Gabor Somogyi <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> As I see there is no action for stale PRs for flink and
> flink-kubernetes-operator repos however almost 1k PRs are open.
>
> I would like to suggest to add new stale PR action based on the following
> github plugin:
> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues
>
> I think the default values for the plugin looks sufficient to our needs:
> * Add a label "Stale" on pull requests after 60 days of inactivity and
> comment on them
> * Close the stale pull requests after 7 days of inactivity
> * If an update/comment occur on stale issues or pull requests, the stale
> label will be removed and the timer will restart
>
> A playground repo is created to test the feature here:
> https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/stale-test-repo
>
> Waiting on opinions/suggestions to make our PR queue manageable.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> BR,
> G
>