You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by Anja <an...@gmail.com> on 2023/03/30 17:54:26 UTC
Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been updated in
30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any PRs that
haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a notification to
the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has value, and
just outright close work that is too out-dated for a straightforward merge.
If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance burden, and
simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and it feels
neutral in its consistent tone.
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Jacob Wujciak <ja...@voltrondata.com.INVALID>.
I am +1 on the general idea. Looking at other projects a two step process
with the PRs being marked stale first (with a comment to ping participants)
and only being closed after a second period of time.
I also agree with Rok that it would be nice to do /something/ with the
issue backlog. There are a lot of valid issues but also a bunch of
outdated/superseded ones that could be closed.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:59 PM Rok Mihevc <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Joris' and David's points here and would prefer some form of
> pinging.
>
> Also at 120 open PRs we could realistically close out stale ones manually.
> Meanwhile we have 3.2k open issues where we might want to get creative.
>
> Rok
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:17 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have the same opinion as Joris. We shouldn't auto-close PRs simply
> > because they have not been recently updated. For a casual contributor it
> > can be extremely frustrating and demotivating to be dealt such a
> > treatment, especially if you've already found it difficult to attract
> > the attention of reviewers.
> >
> > I also agree with Weston that some automated ping based on the PR status
> > could be more useful (and less hostile to contributors).
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antoine.
> >
> >
> > Le 31/03/2023 à 18:54, Weston Pace a écrit :
> > > I just now caught up to the recent wave of closed PRs in my
> notifications
> > > so maybe I see where some of this discussion is coming from :)
> > >
> > > I agree with everything David said and will change my stance from
> neutral
> > > to -0.5. My main problem is that I see no advantage to closing these
> > PRs.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:51 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think I'm -0.5 overall. I do think it is worthwhile giving a "final
> > >> chance" ping to very stale PRs as has been suggested, and pinging
> > reviewers
> > >> for PRs that have been sitting around.
> > >>
> > >> Automatically closing PRs purely based on time (since last update) is
> > >> quite unfriendly. If the problem is reviewer/committer availability,
> > this
> > >> is mostly just sweeping it under the rug. (Especially for subprojects
> or
> > >> areas of the project where there are just not many active reviewers;
> > both
> > >> Parquet-C++ and Java are facing this IMO.) Plus, it is not necessarily
> > >> clear what the etiquette is around pinging reviewers. I can understand
> > if a
> > >> contributor does not necessarily want to bother reviewers even if they
> > >> aren't getting immediate attention, hence having a bot do it may help.
> > And
> > >> we have only just started to roll out relevant changes like the
> > 'awaiting
> > >> review' label and use of CODEOWNERS to assign reviewers.
> > >>
> > >> I'm also concerned that there was an out-of-the-blue mass closure of
> PRs
> > >> recently that didn't appear to even use the 30 day criteria, and which
> > led
> > >> to contributor questions/confusion. (Not to mention, arguably
> > exacerbating
> > >> the inbox problem for many reviewers.)
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, at 12:35, Gang Wu wrote:
> > >>> From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could
> > detect a
> > >>> PR is waiting
> > >>> for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify
> > >>> reviewers if possible.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > >>> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
> > >>>> <al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ..
> > >>>>> My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30
> > >> days
> > >>>>> without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and
> > >> merge it
> > >>>>> and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting
> > it
> > >>>>> merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not
> > >>>> important?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
> > >>>> often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source
> community,
> > >>>> including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
> > >>>> can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side
> as
> > >>>> a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
> > >>>> have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a
> PR
> > >>>> is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
> > >>>> the project.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
> > >>>> limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
> > >>>> problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
> > >>>> the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale
> PRs
> > >>>> are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
> > >>>> necessarily the best solution to that problem.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience
> than
> > >>>> letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason
> is
> > >>>> that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a
> decision
> > >>>> about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
> > >>>> human decision.
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Rok Mihevc <ro...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Joris' and David's points here and would prefer some form of
pinging.
Also at 120 open PRs we could realistically close out stale ones manually.
Meanwhile we have 3.2k open issues where we might want to get creative.
Rok
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:17 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> I have the same opinion as Joris. We shouldn't auto-close PRs simply
> because they have not been recently updated. For a casual contributor it
> can be extremely frustrating and demotivating to be dealt such a
> treatment, especially if you've already found it difficult to attract
> the attention of reviewers.
>
> I also agree with Weston that some automated ping based on the PR status
> could be more useful (and less hostile to contributors).
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> Le 31/03/2023 à 18:54, Weston Pace a écrit :
> > I just now caught up to the recent wave of closed PRs in my notifications
> > so maybe I see where some of this discussion is coming from :)
> >
> > I agree with everything David said and will change my stance from neutral
> > to -0.5. My main problem is that I see no advantage to closing these
> PRs.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:51 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think I'm -0.5 overall. I do think it is worthwhile giving a "final
> >> chance" ping to very stale PRs as has been suggested, and pinging
> reviewers
> >> for PRs that have been sitting around.
> >>
> >> Automatically closing PRs purely based on time (since last update) is
> >> quite unfriendly. If the problem is reviewer/committer availability,
> this
> >> is mostly just sweeping it under the rug. (Especially for subprojects or
> >> areas of the project where there are just not many active reviewers;
> both
> >> Parquet-C++ and Java are facing this IMO.) Plus, it is not necessarily
> >> clear what the etiquette is around pinging reviewers. I can understand
> if a
> >> contributor does not necessarily want to bother reviewers even if they
> >> aren't getting immediate attention, hence having a bot do it may help.
> And
> >> we have only just started to roll out relevant changes like the
> 'awaiting
> >> review' label and use of CODEOWNERS to assign reviewers.
> >>
> >> I'm also concerned that there was an out-of-the-blue mass closure of PRs
> >> recently that didn't appear to even use the 30 day criteria, and which
> led
> >> to contributor questions/confusion. (Not to mention, arguably
> exacerbating
> >> the inbox problem for many reviewers.)
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, at 12:35, Gang Wu wrote:
> >>> From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could
> detect a
> >>> PR is waiting
> >>> for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify
> >>> reviewers if possible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> >>> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
> >>>> <al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>> My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30
> >> days
> >>>>> without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and
> >> merge it
> >>>>> and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting
> it
> >>>>> merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not
> >>>> important?
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
> >>>> often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community,
> >>>> including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
> >>>> can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as
> >>>> a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
> >>>> have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR
> >>>> is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
> >>>> the project.
> >>>>
> >>>> And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
> >>>> limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
> >>>> problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
> >>>> the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs
> >>>> are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
> >>>> necessarily the best solution to that problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than
> >>>> letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is
> >>>> that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision
> >>>> about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
> >>>> human decision.
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
I have the same opinion as Joris. We shouldn't auto-close PRs simply
because they have not been recently updated. For a casual contributor it
can be extremely frustrating and demotivating to be dealt such a
treatment, especially if you've already found it difficult to attract
the attention of reviewers.
I also agree with Weston that some automated ping based on the PR status
could be more useful (and less hostile to contributors).
Regards
Antoine.
Le 31/03/2023 à 18:54, Weston Pace a écrit :
> I just now caught up to the recent wave of closed PRs in my notifications
> so maybe I see where some of this discussion is coming from :)
>
> I agree with everything David said and will change my stance from neutral
> to -0.5. My main problem is that I see no advantage to closing these PRs.
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:51 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think I'm -0.5 overall. I do think it is worthwhile giving a "final
>> chance" ping to very stale PRs as has been suggested, and pinging reviewers
>> for PRs that have been sitting around.
>>
>> Automatically closing PRs purely based on time (since last update) is
>> quite unfriendly. If the problem is reviewer/committer availability, this
>> is mostly just sweeping it under the rug. (Especially for subprojects or
>> areas of the project where there are just not many active reviewers; both
>> Parquet-C++ and Java are facing this IMO.) Plus, it is not necessarily
>> clear what the etiquette is around pinging reviewers. I can understand if a
>> contributor does not necessarily want to bother reviewers even if they
>> aren't getting immediate attention, hence having a bot do it may help. And
>> we have only just started to roll out relevant changes like the 'awaiting
>> review' label and use of CODEOWNERS to assign reviewers.
>>
>> I'm also concerned that there was an out-of-the-blue mass closure of PRs
>> recently that didn't appear to even use the 30 day criteria, and which led
>> to contributor questions/confusion. (Not to mention, arguably exacerbating
>> the inbox problem for many reviewers.)
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, at 12:35, Gang Wu wrote:
>>> From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could detect a
>>> PR is waiting
>>> for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify
>>> reviewers if possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
>>> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
>>>> <al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ..
>>>>> My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30
>> days
>>>>> without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and
>> merge it
>>>>> and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
>>>>> merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not
>>>> important?
>>>>
>>>> I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
>>>> often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community,
>>>> including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
>>>> can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as
>>>> a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
>>>> have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR
>>>> is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
>>>> the project.
>>>>
>>>> And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
>>>> limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
>>>> problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
>>>> the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs
>>>> are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
>>>> necessarily the best solution to that problem.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than
>>>> letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is
>>>> that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision
>>>> about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
>>>> human decision.
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>.
I just now caught up to the recent wave of closed PRs in my notifications
so maybe I see where some of this discussion is coming from :)
I agree with everything David said and will change my stance from neutral
to -0.5. My main problem is that I see no advantage to closing these PRs.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:51 AM David Li <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think I'm -0.5 overall. I do think it is worthwhile giving a "final
> chance" ping to very stale PRs as has been suggested, and pinging reviewers
> for PRs that have been sitting around.
>
> Automatically closing PRs purely based on time (since last update) is
> quite unfriendly. If the problem is reviewer/committer availability, this
> is mostly just sweeping it under the rug. (Especially for subprojects or
> areas of the project where there are just not many active reviewers; both
> Parquet-C++ and Java are facing this IMO.) Plus, it is not necessarily
> clear what the etiquette is around pinging reviewers. I can understand if a
> contributor does not necessarily want to bother reviewers even if they
> aren't getting immediate attention, hence having a bot do it may help. And
> we have only just started to roll out relevant changes like the 'awaiting
> review' label and use of CODEOWNERS to assign reviewers.
>
> I'm also concerned that there was an out-of-the-blue mass closure of PRs
> recently that didn't appear to even use the 30 day criteria, and which led
> to contributor questions/confusion. (Not to mention, arguably exacerbating
> the inbox problem for many reviewers.)
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, at 12:35, Gang Wu wrote:
> > From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could detect a
> > PR is waiting
> > for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify
> > reviewers if possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
> >> <al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ..
> >> > My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30
> days
> >> > without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and
> merge it
> >> > and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
> >> > merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not
> >> important?
> >>
> >> I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
> >> often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community,
> >> including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
> >> can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as
> >> a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
> >> have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR
> >> is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
> >> the project.
> >>
> >> And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
> >> limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
> >> problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
> >> the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs
> >> are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
> >> necessarily the best solution to that problem.
> >>
> >> Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than
> >> letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is
> >> that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision
> >> about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
> >> human decision.
> >>
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by David Li <li...@apache.org>.
I think I'm -0.5 overall. I do think it is worthwhile giving a "final chance" ping to very stale PRs as has been suggested, and pinging reviewers for PRs that have been sitting around.
Automatically closing PRs purely based on time (since last update) is quite unfriendly. If the problem is reviewer/committer availability, this is mostly just sweeping it under the rug. (Especially for subprojects or areas of the project where there are just not many active reviewers; both Parquet-C++ and Java are facing this IMO.) Plus, it is not necessarily clear what the etiquette is around pinging reviewers. I can understand if a contributor does not necessarily want to bother reviewers even if they aren't getting immediate attention, hence having a bot do it may help. And we have only just started to roll out relevant changes like the 'awaiting review' label and use of CODEOWNERS to assign reviewers.
I'm also concerned that there was an out-of-the-blue mass closure of PRs recently that didn't appear to even use the 30 day criteria, and which led to contributor questions/confusion. (Not to mention, arguably exacerbating the inbox problem for many reviewers.)
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, at 12:35, Gang Wu wrote:
> From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could detect a
> PR is waiting
> for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify
> reviewers if possible.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
>> <al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > ..
>> > My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days
>> > without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it
>> > and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
>> > merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not
>> important?
>>
>> I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
>> often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community,
>> including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
>> can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as
>> a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
>> have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR
>> is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
>> the project.
>>
>> And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
>> limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
>> problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
>> the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs
>> are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
>> necessarily the best solution to that problem.
>>
>> Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than
>> letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is
>> that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision
>> about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
>> human decision.
>>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Gang Wu <us...@gmail.com>.
From a contributor perspective, it would be great if a bot could detect a
PR is waiting
for review for a certain period of time and then automatically notify
reviewers if possible.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:21 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
> <al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > ..
> > My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days
> > without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it
> > and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
> > merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not
> important?
>
> I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
> often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community,
> including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
> can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as
> a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
> have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR
> is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
> the project.
>
> And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
> limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
> problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
> the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs
> are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
> necessarily the best solution to that problem.
>
> Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than
> letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is
> that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision
> about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
> human decision.
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Joris Van den Bossche <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 17:38, Alessandro Molina
<al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> ..
> My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days
> without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it
> and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
> merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not important?
I personally don't think that is necessarily the case, no. It might
often be, but certainly not always. This is an open source community,
including volunteer contributors. I think it's very normal that PRs
can sometimes take a longer time to get updated. Also, from my side as
a reviewer. There are more PRs (that interest me) than I personally
have the capacity to review, so the fact that I didn't respond to a PR
is not necessarily a signal that I think it's not a relevant PR for
the project.
And to be clear, this is for sure not an ideal situation. A too
limited maintainers' reviewing capacity and slow response time is a
problem. Having such stale PRs just sit there is a problem, both for
the project as giving a bad contributor experience (I think stale PRs
are often due to lack of review). But just closing them IMO isn't
necessarily the best solution to that problem.
Sometimes closing a PR might give a better contributor experience than
letting the author wait in vain on reviews for years (if the reason is
that there is no real interest in the PR), but I think such a decision
about a contribution not being worth it should ideally still be a
human decision.
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Weston Pace <we...@gmail.com>.
Personally, my workflow is driven entirely by notifications so I don't even
notice stale PRs. That being said, making a PR a draft sounds pretty
harmless.
Slightly unrelated, but now that we have the "awaiting review" label, would
it be possible to write a comment on PRs that have been waiting for review
for a certain period of time? This would pop it back up into the
notification queue.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:38 AM Alessandro Molina
<al...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote:
> I think that marking them drafts could be a good way to reduce the overload
> for people having to review PRs,
> drafts can easily be filtered out in github searches.
>
> > I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
> > after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
> > open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
> > often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews.
>
> Well, I think 30 days would be since the last update to the PR, not 30 days
> since it was opened.
> My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days
> without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it
> and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
> merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not important?
>
> Anyway 30 days was just a random value, it could be 60 or anything else. We
> had PRs that have been open without any comment or update for 120+ days.
>
> I like Will's proposal of sending one ping to the author and reviewers, and
> if there is no feedback after 30 days from the ping we can just close the
> PR.
> I would even make the ping shorter, 10 days without any update to a PR is
> already a time long enough to signal the person might have forgotten about
> it and a ping might bring it up on top of his mind again.
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 5:23 PM Aldrin <ak...@ucsc.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I have some PRs that have been open for awhile and I changed them to be
> > draft PRs (I think that makes them clutter fewer views while I leave them
> > open).
> >
> > I'm just curious if draft PRs are as low cost (low cognitive load) as I
> > think they
> > are and if instead of closing them the bot can make a PR a draft PR? In
> > general
> > I agree with the general direction of the discussion otherwise.
> >
> > Aldrin Montana
> > Computer Science PhD Student
> > UC Santa Cruz
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:49 AM Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it
> was
> > > > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> > > > "feel free to reopen".
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing this up, Joris. That does make closing via bot much
> > > less appealing to me.
> > >
> > > I like your idea of (1) having the bot provide a friendly message
> asking
> > > the contributor whether they plan to continue their work (and maybe
> > provide
> > > suggestions on how to get reviewer attention if needed) and (2) if
> there
> > is
> > > no response to that message after 30 days, we can then close the PR.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:57 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
> > > > after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
> > > > open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
> > > > often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. I know
> > > > we have the labels now that could indicate this, but those are not
> > > > (yet) bullet proof (for example, if I quickly answer to one comment
> it
> > > > will already be marked as "awaiting changes", while in fact it might
> > > > still be waiting on actual review). I think in general it is
> difficult
> > > > to know the exact reason why something is stale, a good reason to be
> > > > careful with automated actions that can be perceived as unfriendly.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think commenting on a PR instead of closing it might be
> > > > a good alternative, if we craft a good and helpful message. That can
> > > > act as a useful reminder, both towards the author as maintainer, and
> > > > can also *ask* to close if they are not planning to further work on
> it
> > > > (and for example, we could still auto-close PRs if nothing happened
> > > > (no push, no comment, ..) on such a PR after an additional period of
> > > > time).
> > > >
> > > > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it
> was
> > > > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> > > > "feel free to reopen".
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author
> hasn't
> > > > > updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do
> > anyways,
> > > so
> > > > > it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so
> > it's
> > > > > guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with
> > > > reviewers.
> > > > >
> > > > > With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied
> > > > sufficient
> > > > > tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their
> review
> > > > > process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes
> > me
> > > > to a
> > > > > filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that
> are
> > > > ready
> > > > > for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view
> of
> > > the
> > > > > project that they regularly check.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Using those labels is a clever idea!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have
> > been
> > > > > > "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <
> will.jones127@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <
> > > > raulcumplido@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review",
> > > > "awaiting
> > > > > > > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change
> > > review"
> > > > to
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <
> > will.jones127@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only,
> > not
> > > > for
> > > > > > > Rust
> > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific
> > > which
> > > > > > > > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window
> > for
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had
> not
> > > > updated
> > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had
> > an
> > > > update
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't
> seem
> > as
> > > > > > ideal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <
> anja.kefala@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated
> process. A
> > > > > > "reminder
> > > > > > > > > ping"
> > > > > > > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <
> anja.kefala@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that
> > haven't
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically
> > > > close any
> > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act
> as
> > a
> > > > > > > > notification
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work
> still
> > > has
> > > > > > > value,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> > > > > > > straightforward
> > > > > > > > > > merge.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce
> > > > maintenance
> > > > > > > > burden,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a
> > > policy,
> > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > feels
> > > > > > > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Alessandro Molina <al...@voltrondata.com.INVALID>.
I think that marking them drafts could be a good way to reduce the overload
for people having to review PRs,
drafts can easily be filtered out in github searches.
> I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
> after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
> open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
> often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews.
Well, I think 30 days would be since the last update to the PR, not 30 days
since it was opened.
My question probably would be... If a PR was sitting ignored for 30 days
without anyone from the community feeling the need to review and merge it
and without its primary author feeling the need to push for getting it
merged. Isn't that a signal that both parts consider that PR not important?
Anyway 30 days was just a random value, it could be 60 or anything else. We
had PRs that have been open without any comment or update for 120+ days.
I like Will's proposal of sending one ping to the author and reviewers, and
if there is no feedback after 30 days from the ping we can just close the
PR.
I would even make the ping shorter, 10 days without any update to a PR is
already a time long enough to signal the person might have forgotten about
it and a ping might bring it up on top of his mind again.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 5:23 PM Aldrin <ak...@ucsc.edu.invalid> wrote:
> I have some PRs that have been open for awhile and I changed them to be
> draft PRs (I think that makes them clutter fewer views while I leave them
> open).
>
> I'm just curious if draft PRs are as low cost (low cognitive load) as I
> think they
> are and if instead of closing them the bot can make a PR a draft PR? In
> general
> I agree with the general direction of the discussion otherwise.
>
> Aldrin Montana
> Computer Science PhD Student
> UC Santa Cruz
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:49 AM Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
> > > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> > > "feel free to reopen".
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up, Joris. That does make closing via bot much
> > less appealing to me.
> >
> > I like your idea of (1) having the bot provide a friendly message asking
> > the contributor whether they plan to continue their work (and maybe
> provide
> > suggestions on how to get reviewer attention if needed) and (2) if there
> is
> > no response to that message after 30 days, we can then close the PR.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:57 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> > jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
> > > after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
> > > open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
> > > often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. I know
> > > we have the labels now that could indicate this, but those are not
> > > (yet) bullet proof (for example, if I quickly answer to one comment it
> > > will already be marked as "awaiting changes", while in fact it might
> > > still be waiting on actual review). I think in general it is difficult
> > > to know the exact reason why something is stale, a good reason to be
> > > careful with automated actions that can be perceived as unfriendly.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think commenting on a PR instead of closing it might be
> > > a good alternative, if we craft a good and helpful message. That can
> > > act as a useful reminder, both towards the author as maintainer, and
> > > can also *ask* to close if they are not planning to further work on it
> > > (and for example, we could still auto-close PRs if nothing happened
> > > (no push, no comment, ..) on such a PR after an additional period of
> > > time).
> > >
> > > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
> > > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> > > "feel free to reopen".
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author hasn't
> > > > updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do
> anyways,
> > so
> > > > it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so
> it's
> > > > guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with
> > > reviewers.
> > > >
> > > > With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied
> > > sufficient
> > > > tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their review
> > > > process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes
> me
> > > to a
> > > > filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that are
> > > ready
> > > > for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view of
> > the
> > > > project that they regularly check.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Using those labels is a clever idea!
> > > > >
> > > > > Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have
> been
> > > > > "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that
> have
> > > been
> > > > > in
> > > > > > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <
> > > raulcumplido@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review",
> > > "awaiting
> > > > > > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change
> > review"
> > > to
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <
> will.jones127@gmail.com>
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only,
> not
> > > for
> > > > > > Rust
> > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific
> > which
> > > > > > > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window
> for
> > > this
> > > > > > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not
> > > updated
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had
> an
> > > update
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem
> as
> > > > > ideal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <anja.kefala@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A
> > > > > "reminder
> > > > > > > > ping"
> > > > > > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that
> haven't
> > > been
> > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically
> > > close any
> > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as
> a
> > > > > > > notification
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still
> > has
> > > > > > value,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> > > > > > straightforward
> > > > > > > > > merge.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce
> > > maintenance
> > > > > > > burden,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a
> > policy,
> > > and
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > feels
> > > > > > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Aldrin <ak...@ucsc.edu.INVALID>.
I have some PRs that have been open for awhile and I changed them to be
draft PRs (I think that makes them clutter fewer views while I leave them
open).
I'm just curious if draft PRs are as low cost (low cognitive load) as I
think they
are and if instead of closing them the bot can make a PR a draft PR? In
general
I agree with the general direction of the discussion otherwise.
Aldrin Montana
Computer Science PhD Student
UC Santa Cruz
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:49 AM Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
> > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> > "feel free to reopen".
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, Joris. That does make closing via bot much
> less appealing to me.
>
> I like your idea of (1) having the bot provide a friendly message asking
> the contributor whether they plan to continue their work (and maybe provide
> suggestions on how to get reviewer attention if needed) and (2) if there is
> no response to that message after 30 days, we can then close the PR.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:57 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
> jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
> > after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
> > open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
> > often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. I know
> > we have the labels now that could indicate this, but those are not
> > (yet) bullet proof (for example, if I quickly answer to one comment it
> > will already be marked as "awaiting changes", while in fact it might
> > still be waiting on actual review). I think in general it is difficult
> > to know the exact reason why something is stale, a good reason to be
> > careful with automated actions that can be perceived as unfriendly.
> >
> > Personally, I think commenting on a PR instead of closing it might be
> > a good alternative, if we craft a good and helpful message. That can
> > act as a useful reminder, both towards the author as maintainer, and
> > can also *ask* to close if they are not planning to further work on it
> > (and for example, we could still auto-close PRs if nothing happened
> > (no push, no comment, ..) on such a PR after an additional period of
> > time).
> >
> > Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
> > closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> > "feel free to reopen".
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author hasn't
> > > updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do anyways,
> so
> > > it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so it's
> > > guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with
> > reviewers.
> > >
> > > With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied
> > sufficient
> > > tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their review
> > > process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes me
> > to a
> > > filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that are
> > ready
> > > for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view of
> the
> > > project that they regularly check.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Using those labels is a clever idea!
> > > >
> > > > Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have been
> > > > "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that have
> > been
> > > > in
> > > > > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <
> > raulcumplido@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review",
> > "awaiting
> > > > > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change
> review"
> > to
> > > > > know
> > > > > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not
> > for
> > > > > Rust
> > > > > > /
> > > > > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific
> which
> > > > > > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for
> > this
> > > > > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not
> > updated
> > > > > it,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an
> > update
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as
> > > > ideal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A
> > > > "reminder
> > > > > > > ping"
> > > > > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't
> > been
> > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically
> > close any
> > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a
> > > > > > notification
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still
> has
> > > > > value,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> > > > > straightforward
> > > > > > > > merge.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce
> > maintenance
> > > > > > burden,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a
> policy,
> > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > > feels
> > > > > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>.
> Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
> closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> "feel free to reopen".
Thanks for bringing this up, Joris. That does make closing via bot much
less appealing to me.
I like your idea of (1) having the bot provide a friendly message asking
the contributor whether they plan to continue their work (and maybe provide
suggestions on how to get reviewer attention if needed) and (2) if there is
no response to that message after 30 days, we can then close the PR.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:57 AM Joris Van den Bossche <
jorisvandenbossche@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
> after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
> open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
> often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. I know
> we have the labels now that could indicate this, but those are not
> (yet) bullet proof (for example, if I quickly answer to one comment it
> will already be marked as "awaiting changes", while in fact it might
> still be waiting on actual review). I think in general it is difficult
> to know the exact reason why something is stale, a good reason to be
> careful with automated actions that can be perceived as unfriendly.
>
> Personally, I think commenting on a PR instead of closing it might be
> a good alternative, if we craft a good and helpful message. That can
> act as a useful reminder, both towards the author as maintainer, and
> can also *ask* to close if they are not planning to further work on it
> (and for example, we could still auto-close PRs if nothing happened
> (no push, no comment, ..) on such a PR after an additional period of
> time).
>
> Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
> closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
> "feel free to reopen".
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author hasn't
> > updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do anyways, so
> > it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so it's
> > guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with
> reviewers.
> >
> > With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied
> sufficient
> > tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their review
> > process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes me
> to a
> > filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that are
> ready
> > for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view of the
> > project that they regularly check.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS
> > [2]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Using those labels is a clever idea!
> > >
> > > Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have been
> > > "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that have
> been
> > > in
> > > > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <
> raulcumplido@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review",
> "awaiting
> > > > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change review"
> to
> > > > know
> > > > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not
> for
> > > > Rust
> > > > > /
> > > > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
> > > > > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for
> this
> > > > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not
> updated
> > > > it,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an
> update
> > > > > from
> > > > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as
> > > ideal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A
> > > "reminder
> > > > > > ping"
> > > > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't
> been
> > > > > updated
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically
> close any
> > > > PRs
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a
> > > > > notification
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has
> > > > value,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> > > > straightforward
> > > > > > > merge.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce
> maintenance
> > > > > burden,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy,
> and
> > > it
> > > > > > feels
> > > > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Joris Van den Bossche <jo...@gmail.com>.
I am personally not a huge fan of auto-closing PRs. Especially not
after a short period like 30 days (I think that's too short for an
open source project), and we have to be careful with messaging. Very
often such a PR is "stale" because it is waiting for reviews. I know
we have the labels now that could indicate this, but those are not
(yet) bullet proof (for example, if I quickly answer to one comment it
will already be marked as "awaiting changes", while in fact it might
still be waiting on actual review). I think in general it is difficult
to know the exact reason why something is stale, a good reason to be
careful with automated actions that can be perceived as unfriendly.
Personally, I think commenting on a PR instead of closing it might be
a good alternative, if we craft a good and helpful message. That can
act as a useful reminder, both towards the author as maintainer, and
can also *ask* to close if they are not planning to further work on it
(and for example, we could still auto-close PRs if nothing happened
(no push, no comment, ..) on such a PR after an additional period of
time).
Also good to know: contributors apparently can't re-open PRs if it was
closed by someone else, so we have to be careful with messages like
"feel free to reopen".
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author hasn't
> updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do anyways, so
> it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so it's
> guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with reviewers.
>
> With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied sufficient
> tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their review
> process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes me to a
> filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that are ready
> for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view of the
> project that they regularly check.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Using those labels is a clever idea!
> >
> > Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have been
> > "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that have been
> > in
> > > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review", "awaiting
> > > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change review" to
> > > know
> > > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> > > >
> > > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not for
> > > Rust
> > > > /
> > > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
> > > > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for this
> > > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not updated
> > > it,
> > > > it
> > > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an update
> > > > from
> > > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as
> > ideal.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A
> > "reminder
> > > > > ping"
> > > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been
> > > > updated
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any
> > > PRs
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a
> > > > notification
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has
> > > value,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> > > straightforward
> > > > > > merge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance
> > > > burden,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and
> > it
> > > > > feels
> > > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>.
I'm +0 on the reviewer bot pings. Closing PRs where the author hasn't
updated in 30 days is something a maintainer would have to do anyways, so
it seems like a useful automation. And there's only one author, so it's
guaranteed to ping the right person. Things are not so clean with reviewers.
With the labels and codeowners file [1] I think we have supplied sufficient
tools so that each subproject in the monorepo can manage their review
process in their own way. For example, I have a bookmark that takes me to a
filtered view of PRs that only shows me the C++ Parquet ones that are ready
for review [2]. I'd encourage each reviewer to have a similar view of the
project that they regularly check.
[1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS
[2]
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%2B%2B%22+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22+draft%3Afalse
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using those labels is a clever idea!
>
> Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have been
> "awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that have been
> in
> > "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <ra...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review", "awaiting
> > > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change review" to
> > know
> > > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> > >
> > > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> > escribió:
> > >
> > > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not for
> > Rust
> > > /
> > > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
> > > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > > >
> > > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for this
> > > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not updated
> > it,
> > > it
> > > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an update
> > > from
> > > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as
> ideal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A
> "reminder
> > > > ping"
> > > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been
> > > updated
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any
> > PRs
> > > > > that
> > > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a
> > > notification
> > > > > to
> > > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has
> > value,
> > > > and
> > > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> > straightforward
> > > > > merge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance
> > > burden,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and
> it
> > > > feels
> > > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Anja <an...@gmail.com>.
Using those labels is a clever idea!
Would there be a benefit to pinging reviewers for PRs that have been
"awaiting X review" for more than 30 days?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 12:31, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that have been in
> "awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review", "awaiting
> > committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change review" to
> know
> > whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
> >
> > El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>
> escribió:
> >
> > > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not for
> Rust
> > /
> > > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
> > > subprojects you are addressing.
> > >
> > > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for this
> > > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not updated
> it,
> > it
> > > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an update
> > from
> > > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as ideal.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A "reminder
> > > ping"
> > > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been
> > updated
> > > > in
> > > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any
> PRs
> > > > that
> > > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a
> > notification
> > > > to
> > > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has
> value,
> > > and
> > > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a
> straightforward
> > > > merge.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance
> > burden,
> > > > and
> > > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and it
> > > feels
> > > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Raul. Perhaps we could limit the stale bot to PRs that have been in
"awaiting changes" for 30 or more days?
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:36 AM Raúl Cumplido <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review", "awaiting
> committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change review" to know
> whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
>
> El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not for Rust
> /
> > Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
> > subprojects you are addressing.
> >
> > I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for this
> > project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not updated it,
> it
> > seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an update
> from
> > reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as ideal.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A "reminder
> > ping"
> > > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been
> updated
> > > in
> > > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > > >
> > > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any PRs
> > > that
> > > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a
> notification
> > > to
> > > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has value,
> > and
> > > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a straightforward
> > > merge.
> > > >
> > > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance
> burden,
> > > and
> > > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and it
> > feels
> > > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Raúl Cumplido <ra...@gmail.com>.
I suppose we could use the new labels for "awaiting review", "awaiting
committer review", "awaiting changes" and "awaiting change review" to know
whether is stale due to the contributor or the reviewer.
El jue, 30 mar 2023, 20:08, Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com> escribió:
> First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not for Rust /
> Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
> subprojects you are addressing.
>
> I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for this
> project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not updated it, it
> seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an update from
> reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as ideal.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A "reminder
> ping"
> > bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been updated
> > in
> > > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> > >
> > > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any PRs
> > that
> > > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a notification
> > to
> > > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has value,
> and
> > > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a straightforward
> > merge.
> > >
> > > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance burden,
> > and
> > > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and it
> feels
> > > neutral in its consistent tone.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Will Jones <wi...@gmail.com>.
First, to clarify: we are discussing for the monorepo only, not for Rust /
Julia / etc.? This is a big project, so best to be specific which
subprojects you are addressing.
I am +0.5 on this. 30 days seems like an appropriate window for this
project. If the PR was stale because the contributor had not updated it, it
seems appropriate. But sometimes it's because it hasn't had an update from
reviewers for a while, and in that situation it doesn't seem as ideal.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:01 AM Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A "reminder ping"
> bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been updated
> in
> > 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
> >
> > I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any PRs
> that
> > haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a notification
> to
> > the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has value, and
> > just outright close work that is too out-dated for a straightforward
> merge.
> >
> > If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance burden,
> and
> > simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and it feels
> > neutral in its consistent tone.
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Proposal: add a bot to close PRs that haven't been updated in 30 days
Posted by Anja <an...@gmail.com>.
Also, perhaps it can be two bots in an escalated process. A "reminder ping"
bot every X days, and then a stalebot every X+Y days.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 10:54, Anja <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When checked this morning, there were 119 PRs that haven't been updated in
> 30 days. The oldest was nearly 3 years old.
>
> I propose the addition of a bot that will automatically close any PRs that
> haven't been updated in 30 days. The closing will act as a notification to
> the reviewers and submitter to evaluate if the work still has value, and
> just outright close work that is too out-dated for a straightforward merge.
>
> If the behaviour is done by a bot, it could reduce maintenance burden, and
> simplify the emotional response. A bot can link to a policy, and it feels
> neutral in its consistent tone.
>
>
>