You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@livy.apache.org by Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com> on 2026/02/15 12:25:36 UTC
Stale PR cleanup for Livy
Hi team,
I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have not
seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs are
currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance overhead.
Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example, marking a
PR as inactive after 6 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 5 months to
inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response.
Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the
work. This could make the project more clear and friendly for newcomers and
reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers.
Would love to know what you think.
Regards,
Arnav
Re: Stale PR cleanup for Livy
Posted by Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
That sounds great! Let me start with 3 month + 1 month, and we can later
refine as needed.
Thanks for the suggestions,
Warm Regards,
Arnav
On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 11:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I agree with Larry, 5/6 months look super "long" to me.
>
> What we do in some Apache projects (Iceberg, Polaris, ...) is a "warn
> comment"/stale status after 30 days of inactivity (to inform contributor),
> and then we close the PR 5 days later.
>
> I think it's fair to notify the contributor after 3 months of inactivity,
> and close one month later.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 4:33 PM larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Arnav -
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I was considering the same and agree.
> >
> > I don't think we need such a long period of inactivity or a warning
> though.
> >
> > Let's just close them with a respectful message that they can reopen if
> > they plan to move it forward.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --larry
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 7:26 AM Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi team,
> > >
> > > I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have
> > not
> > > seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs
> are
> > > currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance
> overhead.
> > >
> > > Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example,
> marking
> > a
> > > PR as inactive after 6 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 5
> months
> > to
> > > inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response.
> > >
> > > Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the
> > > work. This could make the project more clear and friendly for newcomers
> > and
> > > reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers.
> > >
> > > Would love to know what you think.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Arnav
> > >
> >
>
Re: Stale PR cleanup for Livy
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi
I agree with Larry, 5/6 months look super "long" to me.
What we do in some Apache projects (Iceberg, Polaris, ...) is a "warn
comment"/stale status after 30 days of inactivity (to inform contributor),
and then we close the PR 5 days later.
I think it's fair to notify the contributor after 3 months of inactivity,
and close one month later.
Regards
JB
On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 4:33 PM larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnav -
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I was considering the same and agree.
>
> I don't think we need such a long period of inactivity or a warning though.
>
> Let's just close them with a respectful message that they can reopen if
> they plan to move it forward.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --larry
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 7:26 AM Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have
> not
> > seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs are
> > currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance overhead.
> >
> > Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example, marking
> a
> > PR as inactive after 6 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 5 months
> to
> > inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response.
> >
> > Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the
> > work. This could make the project more clear and friendly for newcomers
> and
> > reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers.
> >
> > Would love to know what you think.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Arnav
> >
>
Re: Stale PR cleanup for Livy
Posted by Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com>.
Hi Larry,
Yes completely agreed. Maybe 3 months of inactivity could be a reasonable
starting point.
I'm happy to wait for others to share their suggestions, and if we are
aligned, can raise a draft PR to support it.
Warm Regards,
Arnav
On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 9:03 PM larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnav -
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I was considering the same and agree.
>
> I don't think we need such a long period of inactivity or a warning though.
>
> Let's just close them with a respectful message that they can reopen if
> they plan to move it forward.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --larry
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 7:26 AM Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have
> not
> > seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs are
> > currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance overhead.
> >
> > Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example, marking
> a
> > PR as inactive after 6 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 5 months
> to
> > inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response.
> >
> > Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the
> > work. This could make the project more clear and friendly for newcomers
> and
> > reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers.
> >
> > Would love to know what you think.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Arnav
> >
>
Re: Stale PR cleanup for Livy
Posted by larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>.
Hi Arnav -
Thanks for bringing this up. I was considering the same and agree.
I don't think we need such a long period of inactivity or a warning though.
Let's just close them with a respectful message that they can reopen if
they plan to move it forward.
Thoughts?
--larry
On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 7:26 AM Arnav Balyan <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have not
> seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs are
> currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance overhead.
>
> Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example, marking a
> PR as inactive after 6 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 5 months to
> inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response.
>
> Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the
> work. This could make the project more clear and friendly for newcomers and
> reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers.
>
> Would love to know what you think.
>
> Regards,
> Arnav
>