You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@druid.apache.org by Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> on 2019/02/11 16:27:19 UTC
Auto-closing old PRs
Hey folks,
What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
committers for review.
I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it slightly
here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
This will:
- Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any activity
for 60 days.
- After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
- Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned.
I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines for
those if we were to enact a similar process.
Best regards,
Dylan
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Furkan KAMACI <fu...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I think that 60 days without "any" activity seems reasonable for Druid.
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 5:42 PM Dylan Wylie <dy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, any comments/commits/activity on a PR reset the threshold.
>
> e.g. https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/6768
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 23:05, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I thought the bot uses a threshold of 60 days with absolutely no activity
> > (not 60 days since opening or anything like that); that does seem like a
> > long time to me for a PR to be totally silent. Especially considering the
> > bot won't close the PR right away, but will make a comment first asking
> if
> > anyone is still interested.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:57 PM Roman Leventov <le...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, 60 days is nothing in Druid terms. I suggest making it 6 months.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 07:36, Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Infra got this switched on this morning for the repository, anyone
> who
> > > gets
> > > > email notifications would have unfortunately been spammed as the bot
> > > worked
> > > > through all our old PRs. This will likely happen again in 7 days when
> > it
> > > > closes all the PRs that remain inactive.
> > > >
> > > > For anyone wanting to clean up those mails the following search
> string
> > > > should take return all those mails in GMail for bulk operations
> > > >
> > > > "from:(stale[bot]) apache/incubator-druid"
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 22:15, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > IMO it makes sense to keep PRs open if they have a milestone or
> have
> > a
> > > > > Security or Bug label. 60 days with no activity as a threshold
> sounds
> > > > good
> > > > > to me - it's a pretty long time.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but
> > many
> > > > PRs
> > > > > > have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on
> Jan
> > > 26,
> > > > > > 2016.
> > > > > > I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs
> > and
> > > > > > encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block
> the
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > (See
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > and
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > for the discussion of the milestone policy).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than
> > the
> > > > ones
> > > > > > assigned a milestone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Jihoon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <
> dylanwylie@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some
> sort
> > of
> > > > > > > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned
> > > while
> > > > > > > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to
> > poke
> > > > > > > committers for review.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it
> > > > > slightly
> > > > > > > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This will:
> > > > > > > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had
> any
> > > > > > activity
> > > > > > > for 60 days.
> > > > > > > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > > > > > > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone
> > > > assigned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the
> > > timelines
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Dylan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Dylan Wylie <dy...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, any comments/commits/activity on a PR reset the threshold.
e.g. https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/6768
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 23:05, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I thought the bot uses a threshold of 60 days with absolutely no activity
> (not 60 days since opening or anything like that); that does seem like a
> long time to me for a PR to be totally silent. Especially considering the
> bot won't close the PR right away, but will make a comment first asking if
> anyone is still interested.
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:57 PM Roman Leventov <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > IMO, 60 days is nothing in Druid terms. I suggest making it 6 months.
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 07:36, Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Infra got this switched on this morning for the repository, anyone who
> > gets
> > > email notifications would have unfortunately been spammed as the bot
> > worked
> > > through all our old PRs. This will likely happen again in 7 days when
> it
> > > closes all the PRs that remain inactive.
> > >
> > > For anyone wanting to clean up those mails the following search string
> > > should take return all those mails in GMail for bulk operations
> > >
> > > "from:(stale[bot]) apache/incubator-druid"
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 22:15, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO it makes sense to keep PRs open if they have a milestone or have
> a
> > > > Security or Bug label. 60 days with no activity as a threshold sounds
> > > good
> > > > to me - it's a pretty long time.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but
> many
> > > PRs
> > > > > have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan
> > 26,
> > > > > 2016.
> > > > > I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs
> and
> > > > > encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
> > > > >
> > > > > The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone,
> we
> > > can
> > > > > assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the
> > > > release.
> > > > > (See
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > > for the discussion of the milestone policy).
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than
> the
> > > ones
> > > > > assigned a milestone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Jihoon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dylanwylie@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort
> of
> > > > > > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned
> > while
> > > > > > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to
> poke
> > > > > > committers for review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it
> > > > slightly
> > > > > > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This will:
> > > > > > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> > > > > activity
> > > > > > for 60 days.
> > > > > > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > > > > > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone
> > > assigned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the
> > timelines
> > > > for
> > > > > > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Dylan
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org>.
I thought the bot uses a threshold of 60 days with absolutely no activity
(not 60 days since opening or anything like that); that does seem like a
long time to me for a PR to be totally silent. Especially considering the
bot won't close the PR right away, but will make a comment first asking if
anyone is still interested.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:57 PM Roman Leventov <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> IMO, 60 days is nothing in Druid terms. I suggest making it 6 months.
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 07:36, Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Infra got this switched on this morning for the repository, anyone who
> gets
> > email notifications would have unfortunately been spammed as the bot
> worked
> > through all our old PRs. This will likely happen again in 7 days when it
> > closes all the PRs that remain inactive.
> >
> > For anyone wanting to clean up those mails the following search string
> > should take return all those mails in GMail for bulk operations
> >
> > "from:(stale[bot]) apache/incubator-druid"
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 22:15, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > IMO it makes sense to keep PRs open if they have a milestone or have a
> > > Security or Bug label. 60 days with no activity as a threshold sounds
> > good
> > > to me - it's a pretty long time.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many
> > PRs
> > > > have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan
> 26,
> > > > 2016.
> > > > I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
> > > > encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
> > > >
> > > > The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we
> > can
> > > > assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the
> > > release.
> > > > (See
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > > for the discussion of the milestone policy).
> > > >
> > > > I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the
> > ones
> > > > assigned a milestone.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jihoon
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> > > > > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned
> while
> > > > > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> > > > > committers for review.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it
> > > slightly
> > > > > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> > > > >
> > > > > This will:
> > > > > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> > > > activity
> > > > > for 60 days.
> > > > > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > > > > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone
> > assigned.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the
> timelines
> > > for
> > > > > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Dylan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Roman Leventov <le...@gmail.com>.
IMO, 60 days is nothing in Druid terms. I suggest making it 6 months.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 07:36, Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> wrote:
> Infra got this switched on this morning for the repository, anyone who gets
> email notifications would have unfortunately been spammed as the bot worked
> through all our old PRs. This will likely happen again in 7 days when it
> closes all the PRs that remain inactive.
>
> For anyone wanting to clean up those mails the following search string
> should take return all those mails in GMail for bulk operations
>
> "from:(stale[bot]) apache/incubator-druid"
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 22:15, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > IMO it makes sense to keep PRs open if they have a milestone or have a
> > Security or Bug label. 60 days with no activity as a threshold sounds
> good
> > to me - it's a pretty long time.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
> > >
> > > I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many
> PRs
> > > have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26,
> > > 2016.
> > > I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
> > > encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
> > >
> > > The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we
> can
> > > assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the
> > release.
> > > (See
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > and
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > > for the discussion of the milestone policy).
> > >
> > > I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the
> ones
> > > assigned a milestone.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jihoon
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey folks,
> > > >
> > > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> > > >
> > > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> > > > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
> > > > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> > > > committers for review.
> > > >
> > > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it
> > slightly
> > > > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> > > >
> > > > This will:
> > > > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> > > activity
> > > > for 60 days.
> > > > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > > > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone
> assigned.
> > > >
> > > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines
> > for
> > > > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Dylan
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org>.
Infra got this switched on this morning for the repository, anyone who gets
email notifications would have unfortunately been spammed as the bot worked
through all our old PRs. This will likely happen again in 7 days when it
closes all the PRs that remain inactive.
For anyone wanting to clean up those mails the following search string
should take return all those mails in GMail for bulk operations
"from:(stale[bot]) apache/incubator-druid"
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 22:15, Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org> wrote:
> IMO it makes sense to keep PRs open if they have a milestone or have a
> Security or Bug label. 60 days with no activity as a threshold sounds good
> to me - it's a pretty long time.
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
> >
> > I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many PRs
> > have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26,
> > 2016.
> > I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
> > encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
> >
> > The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we can
> > assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the
> release.
> > (See
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > and
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > for the discussion of the milestone policy).
> >
> > I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the ones
> > assigned a milestone.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jihoon
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> > >
> > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> > > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
> > > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> > > committers for review.
> > >
> > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it
> slightly
> > > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> > >
> > > This will:
> > > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> > activity
> > > for 60 days.
> > > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned.
> > >
> > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines
> for
> > > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Dylan
> > >
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Gian Merlino <gi...@apache.org>.
IMO it makes sense to keep PRs open if they have a milestone or have a
Security or Bug label. 60 days with no activity as a threshold sounds good
to me - it's a pretty long time.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
>
> I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many PRs
> have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26,
> 2016.
> I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
> encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
>
> The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we can
> assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the release.
> (See
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> and
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> for the discussion of the milestone policy).
>
> I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the ones
> assigned a milestone.
>
> Best,
> Jihoon
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> >
> > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
> > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> > committers for review.
> >
> > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it slightly
> > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> >
> > This will:
> > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> activity
> > for 60 days.
> > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned.
> >
> > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines for
> > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dylan
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Jihoon Son <gh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Himanshu,
Review is always welcomed, from anyone.
Jihoon
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:21 PM Himanshu Pandey <
himanshu.pandey12@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can I get involve in the review process? I am not a committer though.
>
> *Regards,*
> *Himanshu*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
> >
> > I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many PRs
> > have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26,
> > 2016.
> > I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
> > encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
> >
> > The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we can
> > assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the
> release.
> > (See
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > and
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> > for the discussion of the milestone policy).
> >
> > I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the ones
> > assigned a milestone.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jihoon
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> > >
> > > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> > > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
> > > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> > > committers for review.
> > >
> > > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it
> slightly
> > > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> > >
> > > This will:
> > > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> > activity
> > > for 60 days.
> > > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned.
> > >
> > > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines
> for
> > > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Dylan
> > >
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Himanshu Pandey <hi...@gmail.com>.
Can I get involve in the review process? I am not a committer though.
*Regards,*
*Himanshu*
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:22 AM Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
>
> I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many PRs
> have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26,
> 2016.
> I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
> encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
>
> The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we can
> assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the release.
> (See
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> and
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
> for the discussion of the milestone policy).
>
> I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the ones
> assigned a milestone.
>
> Best,
> Jihoon
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
> >
> > There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> > automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
> > highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> > committers for review.
> >
> > I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it slightly
> > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
> >
> > This will:
> > - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any
> activity
> > for 60 days.
> > - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> > - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned.
> >
> > I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines for
> > those if we were to enact a similar process.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dylan
> >
>
Re: Auto-closing old PRs
Posted by Jihoon Son <ji...@apache.org>.
Hi Dylan, thank you for starting a discussion.
I think this is a good idea. We currently have 159 open PRs, but many PRs
have gone too stale. For example, the earliest PR was opened on Jan 26,
2016.
I do believe that this would help us to focus on more active PRs and
encourage more people to get involved in the review process.
The policy for the timeline looks good to me. But, for milestone, we can
assign it on any PRs and remove it later if it shouldn't block the release.
(See
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/371ffb06447debb93eec01863802aab13a08a9c37356466e6750c007@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
and
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b9cd3aaf2d01801751f16ee0b2beb2cebc39e2a42160ffb268dc6918@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E
for the discussion of the milestone policy).
I think we should make bug PRs to be not auto-closed rather than the ones
assigned a milestone.
Best,
Jihoon
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dylan Wylie <dy...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> What are opinions on automatically closing old pull requests?
>
> There's a lot that our outdated and abandoned. I think some sort of
> automated process will tidy away those that are truly abandoned while
> highlighting those that aren't by encouraging their authors to poke
> committers for review.
>
> I've taken Apache Beam's stalebot configuration and adjusted it slightly
> here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7031
>
> This will:
> - Leave a comment and mark PRs as stale when they haven't had any activity
> for 60 days.
> - After a further 7 days of no activity the PR will be closed.
> - Ignore any PR that has the label "Security" or a milestone assigned.
>
> I've left issues out for now but open to suggestions on the timelines for
> those if we were to enact a similar process.
>
> Best regards,
> Dylan
>