[DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is 
closed. Any objections?

Thank you,

Vlad

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

2 months would work.

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vrozov@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
>>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
>>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
>>> into it.
>>> 
>> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go into
>> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's attention.
> For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to look into closed and not merged PRs?
>> 
>> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion with
>>> a proper comment.
>> 
>>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
>>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 3
>>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
>>> who were involved into the review.
>>> 
>> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
>> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
>> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
>> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
>> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
>> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
>> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
>> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
>> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
>> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
>> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
> If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback.
> 
> There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>> 
>> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move to
>>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
>>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
>>> possible at all.
>>> 
>> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
>> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
>> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
>> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
>> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
>> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like 3
>> months should be fine.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Vlad
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
>>>> in
>>>> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
>>>> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
>>>> would be ideal.
>>>> 
>>>> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
>>>> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
>>>> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
>>>> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
>>>> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
>>>>> closed. Any objections?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vlad

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

To clarify - if a committer does not have time to review we can assume 
that he/she also does not have time to close. PR is considered inactive 
when there are review comments that a contributor needs to address and 
there is no activity.

Based on our previous discussion, I assume that contributors should 
proactively reach to committers to ask them to review and merge PRs.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 21:26, Priyanka Gugale wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am okay with closing inactive PR but timeline should be more than a
> month. I have been in situations where for some reason or other the PR was
> pending for 2-3 months, sometimes reason was simple as relevant committer
> didn't have time to review that time. I will vote for 3 months.
>
> -Priyanka
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>
>> I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months
>> looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time
>> side; so I am 0+ on either.
>>
>> Thks,
>> Amol
>>
>>
>>
>> E:amol@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*
>>
>> www.datatorrent.com
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as
>>> new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
>>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
>>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
>>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
>> Also
>>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
>>> two could work.
>>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
>>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer
>> can
>>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
>>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
>> process
>>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
>>> not those who do not follow.
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is
>> a
>>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
>>> action
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
>> then
>>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
>>> becomes
>>>>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
>>> is
>>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
>> people
>>> will
>>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
>>> context/comments
>>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
>>> don't
>>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR
>> as
>>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
>>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
>>> will require checking on the committers part.
>>>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Priyanka Gugale <pr...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I am okay with closing inactive PR but timeline should be more than a
month. I have been in situations where for some reason or other the PR was
pending for 2-3 months, sometimes reason was simple as relevant committer
didn't have time to review that time. I will vote for 3 months.

-Priyanka

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months
> looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time
> side; so I am 0+ on either.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
>
> E:amol@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*
>
> www.datatorrent.com
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as
> > new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
> > closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
> > will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> > through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
> Also
> > I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
> > two could work.
> >
> > > On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
> > that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer
> can
> > recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
> > that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
> process
> > for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
> > not those who do not follow.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Vlad
> > >
> > > On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> > >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> > pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> > >>>>> (contributor guidelines)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is
> a
> > >>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
> > >>>> collaboration.
> > >>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> > >>>> sitting
> > >>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> > action
> > >>>> by
> > >>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
> then
> > >>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
> > becomes
> > >>>>> ready for review.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thomas
> > >>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
> > is
> > >>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
> people
> > will
> > >>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> > context/comments
> > >>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> > >>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> > don't
> > >>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> > >> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> > comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR
> as
> > opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
> > include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
> > will require checking on the committers part.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>]

I am +1 on closing inactive PRs. Time wise 1 month looks short, 3 months
looks long to me. In either case I do not have strong opinion on the time
side; so I am 0+ on either.

Thks,
Amol



E:amol@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*

www.datatorrent.com


On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as
> new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also
> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
> two could work.
>
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can
> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process
> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
> not those who do not follow.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> > On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> >>>>> (contributor guidelines)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> >>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
> >>>> collaboration.
> >>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> >>>> sitting
> >>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> action
> >>>> by
> >>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> >>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
> becomes
> >>>>> ready for review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thomas
> >>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
> is
> >>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people
> will
> >>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> context/comments
> >>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> >>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> don't
> >>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> >> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as
> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
> will require checking on the committers part.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Amol Kekre <am...@datatorrent.com>]

Vlad,
I am +1. Do proceed. I am not sure what the process is, i.e wait a day or
so to get folks to give final opinion, or just proceed. Either way, your
call.

Thks
Amol



E:amol@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*

www.datatorrent.com


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that
> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
> >
> > 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
> > a timely manner
> > 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
> >
> > Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
> > for 2 month?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >
> >> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
> >> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
> provides
> >> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why
> people
> >> will generally miss the old PR.
> >>
> >> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
> >> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
> >> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
> >> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
> >> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
> be
> >> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
> the
> >> old patch they (comments) apply to?
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Vlad
> >>
> >> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>
> >>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
> >>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a
> previous
> >>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding.
> People
> >>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
> >>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
> Also
> >>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs
> open,
> >>> two could work.
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to
> remember
> >>>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a
> committer can
> >>>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
> closed)
> >>>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
> process
> >>>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
> and
> >>>> not those who do not follow.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>>
> >>>> Vlad
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> >>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it
> is a
> >>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> collaboration.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> sitting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> >>>>>>>> action
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
> then
> >>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
> >>>>>>>> becomes
> >>>>>>>> ready for review.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if
> there
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
> >>>>>>> people will
> >>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> >>>>>>> context/comments
> >>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> >>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> >>>>>> don't
> >>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> >>>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a
> new PR as
> >>>>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines
> can
> >>>>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things
> that
> >>>>> will require checking on the committers part.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

Sorry sent from a different email..

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Lakshmi Velineni <la...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

> I was thinking it would be better to update guidelines first as it gives a
> little bit of heads up.
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pramod,
> >
> > Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why it
> > is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR I
> > asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If there
> > are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Vlad
> >
> >
> > On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >
> >> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs
> >> that
> >> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
> >>>
> >>> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it
> in
> >>> a timely manner
> >>> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
> >>>
> >>> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are
> inactive
> >>> for 2 month?
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Vlad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
> >>>> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
> >>>> provides
> >>>> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why
> >>>> people
> >>>> will generally miss the old PR.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
> >>>> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to
> the
> >>>> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
> >>>> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that
> was
> >>>> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
> >>>> be
> >>>> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
> >>>> the
> >>>> old patch they (comments) apply to?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>>
> >>>> Vlad
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
> >>>>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a
> >>>>> previous
> >>>>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding.
> >>>>> People
> >>>>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will
> go
> >>>>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be
> lost.
> >>>>> Also
> >>>>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs
> >>>>> open,
> >>>>> two could work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to
> >>>>>> remember
> >>>>>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a
> >>>>>> committer can
> >>>>>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
> >>>>>> closed)
> >>>>>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
> >>>>>> process
> >>>>>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> not those who do not follow.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vlad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
> >>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> >>>>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it
> >>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> collaboration.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned
> PRs
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> sitting
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
> >>>>>>>>>> action
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
> >>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and
> it
> >>>>>>>>>> becomes
> >>>>>>>>>> ready for review.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if
> >>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
> >>>>>>>>> people will
> >>>>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
> >>>>>>>>> context/comments
> >>>>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes
> are
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
> >>>>>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a
> >>>>>>> new PR as
> >>>>>>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> will require checking on the committers part.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Lakshmi Velineni <la...@datatorrent.com>]

I was thinking it would be better to update guidelines first as it gives a
little bit of heads up.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Pramod,
>
> Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why it
> is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR I
> asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If there
> are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs
>> that
>> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
>>>
>>> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
>>> a timely manner
>>> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
>>>
>>> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
>>> for 2 month?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
>>>> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github
>>>> provides
>>>> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why
>>>> people
>>>> will generally miss the old PR.
>>>>
>>>> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
>>>> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
>>>> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
>>>> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
>>>> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will
>>>> be
>>>> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see
>>>> the
>>>> old patch they (comments) apply to?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
>>>>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a
>>>>> previous
>>>>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding.
>>>>> People
>>>>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
>>>>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost.
>>>>> Also
>>>>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs
>>>>> open,
>>>>> two could work.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to
>>>>>> remember
>>>>>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a
>>>>>> committer can
>>>>>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is
>>>>>> closed)
>>>>>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> not those who do not follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
>>>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
>>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
>>>>>>>>> people will
>>>>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
>>>>>>>>> context/comments
>>>>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
>>>>>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a
>>>>>>> new PR as
>>>>>>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> will require checking on the committers part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Hi Pramod,

Do you mean that guidelines needs to be updated first? I don't see why 
it is necessary. Guidelines is for future PRs. For any existing open PR 
I asked to provide objections (with justification) on this thread. If 
there are no objections, I'll close all inactive PRs during this weekend.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/27/17 20:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that
> fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
>>
>> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
>> a timely manner
>> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
>>
>> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
>> for 2 month?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
>>> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github provides
>>> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why people
>>> will generally miss the old PR.
>>>
>>> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
>>> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
>>> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
>>> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
>>> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will be
>>> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see the
>>> old patch they (comments) apply to?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
>>>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
>>>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
>>>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
>>>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also
>>>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
>>>> two could work.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
>>>>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can
>>>>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
>>>>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process
>>>>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
>>>>> not those who do not follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
>>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
>>>>>>>> people will
>>>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
>>>>>>>> context/comments
>>>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
>>>>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as
>>>>>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
>>>>>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
>>>>>> will require checking on the committers part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

It should be ok in my opinion to close the currently open inactive PRs that
fall into that category once we have the guidelines updated.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to
>
> 1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it in
> a timely manner
> 2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity
>
> Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are inactive
> for 2 month?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
>
>> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote
>> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github provides
>> a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't see why people
>> will generally miss the old PR.
>>
>> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original
>> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the
>> original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and
>> re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was
>> inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will be
>> impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see the
>> old patch they (comments) apply to?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>
>>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context
>>> as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous
>>> closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People
>>> will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go
>>> through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also
>>> I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open,
>>> two could work.
>>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember
>>>> that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can
>>>> recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed)
>>>> that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process
>>>> for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and
>>>> not those who do not follow.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it
>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most
>>>>>>> people will
>>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old
>>>>>>> context/comments
>>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor
>>>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as
>>>>> opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can
>>>>> include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that
>>>>> will require checking on the committers part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Based on the discussion I'll update contributor/committer guidelines to

1. ask a contributor to close PR when (s)he is not ready to work on it 
in a timely manner
2. allow committers to close inactive PR after 2 month of inactivity

Any objections to closing existing (currently open) PRs that are 
inactive for 2 month?

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 21:19, Vlad Rozov wrote:
> Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote 
> branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github 
> provides a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't 
> see why people will generally miss the old PR.
>
> The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original 
> (remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to 
> the original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted 
> and re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR 
> that was inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided 
> as it will be impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without 
> ability to see the old patch they (comments) apply to?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
> On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same 
>> context as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back 
>> to a previous closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is 
>> outstanding. People will generally miss the old PR and will either 
>> not reopen it or will go through it, so its possible previous 
>> reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t think three months is 
>> not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to 
>>> remember that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that 
>>> a committer can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it 
>>> stays open or is closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we 
>>> should try to optimize process for good community members (those who 
>>> follow contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni 
>>>>> <pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it 
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for 
>>>>>>> action
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and 
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and 
>>>>>>> it becomes
>>>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if 
>>>>>> there is
>>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most 
>>>>>> people will
>>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old 
>>>>>> context/comments
>>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers 
>>>>> don't
>>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor 
>>>> comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a 
>>>> new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The 
>>>> guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one 
>>>> of those things that will require checking on the committers part.
>>>>
>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Assuming that a contributor tries to open new PR using the same remote 
branch as the original PR instead of re-opening closed PR, github 
provides a notification reminding that one already exists, so I don't 
see why people will generally miss the old PR.

The only case where closed PR can't be re-open is when the original 
(remote) branch was deleted and re-created or after a forced push to the 
original remote branch (that github can't distinguish from deleted and 
re-created branch). Would you agree that a forced push for a PR that was 
inactive for a significant period of time should be avoided as it will 
be impossible for reviewers to recollect comments without ability to see 
the old patch they (comments) apply to?

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 15:27, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.
>
>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>>> sitting
>>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
>>>>> by
>>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
>>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
>>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
>>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
>>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
>>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking on the committers part.
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

If PR is open, the previous comments are available in the same context as new discussions. There is no need to remember to go back to a previous closed PR to figure out what was discussed or what is outstanding. People will generally miss the old PR and will either not reopen it or will go through it, so its possible previous reviewers concerns would be lost. Also I don’t think three months is not an unreasonable time to leave PRs open, two could work.

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to optimize process for good community members (those who follow contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vlad
> 
> On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>>> collaboration.
>>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>>> sitting
>>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
>>>> by
>>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
>>>>> ready for review.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thomas
>>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
>>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
>>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
>>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
>>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
>> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking on the committers part.
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

If a PR is closed due to inactivity and a contributor fails to remember 
that he/she open a PR in the past, what is the chance that a committer 
can recollect what was discussed on a PR (whether it stays open or is 
closed) that was inactive for 2-3 month :)? IMO, we should try to 
optimize process for good community members (those who follow 
contributor guidelines) and not those who do not follow.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/24/17 09:29, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>>> collaboration.
>>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>>> sitting
>>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
>>> by
>>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
>>>> ready for review.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
>>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
>>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
>>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>>>
>>>
>> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
>> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
>> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.
> In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking on the committers part.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com <ma...@datatorrent.com>>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
>>> (contributor guidelines)
>>> 
>>> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
>>> function that github provides that should be used to improve
>> collaboration.
>>> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
>> sitting
>>> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
>> by
>>> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
>>> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
>>> ready for review.
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>> 
>> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
>> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
>> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
>> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>> 
>> 
> Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
> requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
> encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

In cases where PR was closed due to inactivity and the contributor comes back later to work on it, they are likely going to create a new PR as opposed to finding the closed one and reopening it. The guidelines can include proper process but most likely this is one of those things that will require checking on the committers part.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> > (contributor guidelines)
> >
> > There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> > function that github provides that should be used to improve
> collaboration.
> > PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs
> sitting
> > as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action
> by
> > the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> > re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
> > ready for review.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is
> inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will
> create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments
> will be forgotten and not addressed.
>
>
Why will contributors open new PRs even in cases where changes are
requested on an open PR? Because it is not documented or reviewers don't
encourage the proper process? We should solve that problem.

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> +1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
> (contributor guidelines)
> 
> There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
> function that github provides that should be used to improve collaboration.
> PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs sitting
> as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action by
> the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
> re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
> ready for review.
> 
> Thomas

Please refer to my email again, I am not against closing PR if there is inactivity. My issue is with the time period. In reality, most people will create new PRs instead of reopening old ones and the old context/comments will be forgotten and not addressed.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
>>>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
>>>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
>>>> into it.
>>>> 
>>>> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go
>>> into
>>> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's
>>> attention.
>>> 
>> For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to
>> have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR
>> where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to
>> look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to
>> look into closed and not merged PRs?
>> 
>>> 
>>> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion
>>> with
>>> 
>>>> a proper comment.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
>>>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after
>>>> 3
>>>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
>>>> who were involved into the review.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
>>> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
>>> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
>>> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
>>> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
>>> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
>>> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
>>> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
>>> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
>>> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
>>> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
>>> 
>> If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to
>> address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the
>> PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a
>> code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback.
>> 
>> There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an
>> irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work
>> on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good
>> enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>> 
>> 
>>> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move
>>> to
>>> 
>>>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
>>>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
>>>> possible at all.
>>>> 
>>>> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
>>> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
>>> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
>>> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
>>> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
>>> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like
>>> 3
>>> months should be fine.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> Vlad
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
>>>>> in
>>>>> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more
>>>>> than
>>>>> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
>>>>> would be ideal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever
>>>>> they
>>>>> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may
>>>>> go
>>>>> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects
>>>>> that
>>>>> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone
>>>>> else
>>>>> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active
>>>>> on
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
>>>>> 
>>>>>> closed. Any objections?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>]

+1 for closing inactive PRs after documented period of inactivity
(contributor guidelines)

There is nothing "draconian" or negative about closing a PR, it is a
function that github provides that should be used to improve collaboration.
PR is a review tool, it is not good to have stale or abandoned PRs sitting
as open. When there is no activity on a PR and it is waiting for action by
the contributor (not ready for review), it should be closed and then
re-opened once the contributor was able to move it forward and it becomes
ready for review.

Thomas






On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
>>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
>>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
>>> into it.
>>>
>>> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go
>> into
>> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's
>> attention.
>>
> For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary to
> have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale PR
> where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants to
> look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better to
> look into closed and not merged PRs?
>
>>
>> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion
>> with
>>
>>> a proper comment.
>>>
>>
>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
>>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after
>>> 3
>>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
>>> who were involved into the review.
>>>
>>> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
>> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
>> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
>> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
>> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
>> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
>> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
>> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
>> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
>> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
>> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
>>
> If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to
> address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close the
> PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open when a
> code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide feedback.
>
> There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an
> irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to work
> on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is good
> enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>
>
>> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move
>> to
>>
>>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
>>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
>>> possible at all.
>>>
>>> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
>> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
>> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
>> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
>> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
>> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like
>> 3
>> months should be fine.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>>
>>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
>>>> in
>>>> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more
>>>> than
>>>> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
>>>> would be ideal.
>>>>
>>>> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever
>>>> they
>>>> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may
>>>> go
>>>> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects
>>>> that
>>>> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone
>>>> else
>>>> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active
>>>> on
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
>>>>
>>>>> closed. Any objections?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

On 9/23/17 11:07, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
>> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
>> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
>> into it.
>>
> Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go into
> the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's attention.
For items in the main list to catch someone's attention it is necessary 
to have some activity on the PR. Why a committer will look into a stale 
PR where an action item is on a contributor side? In case somebody wants 
to look into inactive PR and take the ownership of it, will it be better 
to look into closed and not merged PRs?
>
> PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion with
>> a proper comment.
>
>> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
>> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 3
>> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
>> who were involved into the review.
>>
> Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
> would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
> easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
> few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
> short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
> might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
> not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
> PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
> the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
> would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
> the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.
If a contributor is distracted with something and does not have time to 
address review comments, will it be better for the contributor to close 
the PR him/herself as a courtesy to reviewers? PR is supposed to be open 
when a code contribution is ready for others to take a look and provide 
feedback.

There is nothing draconian in closing inactive PR. Closing PR is not an 
irreversible action - all it says is that a contributor needs time to 
work on the PR and is not actively working on it. I feel that 1 month is 
good enough, you think that 3 month is necessary, can we agree on 2 month?
>
> Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move to
>> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
>> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
>> possible at all.
>>
> Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
> so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
> state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
> cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
> projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
> prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like 3
> months should be fine.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>>
>>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
>>> in
>>> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
>>> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
>>> would be ideal.
>>>
>>> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
>>> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
>>> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
>>> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
>>> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
>>>> closed. Any objections?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. It
> is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are also
> preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to look
> into it.
>

Closed PRs don't show up in the main list, folks will typically not go into
the closed PR list. Items in the main list could catch someone's attention.

PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion with
> a proper comment.


> It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done
> during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 3
> month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and everyone
> who were involved into the review.
>

Yes, referring to the same. This would not apply in the usual cases but
would be the maximum time period in case of inactivity. One month can
easily pass if you are distracted with something, it has happened to me a
few times for example when something comes up at work. One month seems
short, draconian and unnecessary. A longer time period is needed. While it
might take some extra effort from the reviewer and/or contributor it does
not pose an undue burden, they can quickly come upto speed looking at the
PR log. If the PR were closed and reopened it would be the same. Worse if
the PR was closed and a new PR were opened for the same code, the old log
would probably not show up and then we need additional guidelines to link
the old one, so the concerns raised earlier are still addressed.

Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move to
> gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such
> projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if
> possible at all.
>

Not many projects are on gitbox so we don't know which way they would go,
so you are right in that we cannot assess them based on their current
state, even though I do see some examples of this on gitbox, like
cloudstack. In any case, we don't have to necessarily follow what other
projects do and can determine what works best for us. Normally I would
prefer PRs to remain open for longer for reasons above, but a period like 3
months should be fine.

Thanks


>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
>
>> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute
>> in
>> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
>> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
>> would be ideal.
>>
>> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
>> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
>> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
>> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
>> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
>> it.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
>>> closed. Any objections?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org>]

Closing PR does not mean that the work submitted for a review is lost. 
It is preserved on a contributor fork. All comments and discussion are 
also preserved and PR can be re-open if/when a contributor have time to 
look into it.

PR can be closed by any committer who was involved into the discussion 
with a proper comment.

It is 1 month of inactivity on the PR. Note that PR review is also done 
during spare time and recollecting what happened on an inactive PR after 
3 month or a year requires extra time/effort from a committer and 
everyone who were involved into the review.

Majority of projects that have hundreds outstanding PRs did not yet move 
to gitbox and do not have write access to their github repos. For such 
projects closing and opening closed PRs requires additional effort if 
possible at all.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 9/23/17 08:12, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
> I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute in
> their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
> a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
> would be ideal.
>
> How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
> see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
> with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
> have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
> can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
> it.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
>> closed. Any objections?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Vlad
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Pramod Immaneni <pr...@datatorrent.com>]

I think one month time period is short since people typically contribute in
their spare time. I have seen PRs being worked on with breaks of more than
a month and I have gone back to PRs with that gap as well. Three months
would be ideal.

How would this be enforced? Would committers do this ad-hoc, whenever they
see some old PRs? Also, this may not be a problem right now and we may go
with more relaxed timelines (like 1 year) as there are other projects that
have hundreds of outstanding PRs. If the PR is open at least someone else
can take it from there, if the original contributor is no longer active on
it.

Thanks

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:

> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is
> closed. Any objections?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>

Re: [DISCUSS] inactive PR

[Ananth G <an...@gmail.com>]

I would vote for dead PRs to be ideally closed. 

However, I was wondering if we are being too stringent on the timelines. The reason I raise this is in some of the previous pull requests I was told that the committer would be merging after waiting for a few days. Since the definition of few is not fixed, may I request  we define some timelines for the commit time windows as well so that we have sufficient gap between these two time windows ? 


Regards,
Ananth 
> On 23 Sep 2017, at 11:48 am, Vlad Rozov <vr...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I'd suggest that a PR that lack an activity for more than a month is closed. Any objections?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vlad