metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Miklavcic <michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Inactive PRs
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:28:12 GMT
I'm for cleaning up the outstanding inactive PR's and putting this in the
dev guidelines. I would actually like to push for a time that is less than
6 weeks. Why not 4? We don't risk much - a submitter can always reopen a
closed PR, and the history is maintained. Closed PR's don't disappear afaik
- they remain in perpetuity.

M

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would make sure that each clause is consistent with the distinction.
> Contributor is def. better.
>
>
> On April 13, 2018 at 15:27:39, Nick Allen (nick@nickallen.org) wrote:
>
> Yes, that is a good edit Otto.  If I formally submit this as a change to
> dev guidelines, I will use your edit.
>
> One small thing, instead of "submitter", I'll stick with "contributor"
> because I use that everywhere else.
>
>  A pull request is 'inactive' if no comments or updates have been made by
> the contributor in the previous 6 weeks.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would be more explicit that the inactivity was the inactivity of the
> > submitter.
> > It should be clear that this is not for PRs that have not been reviewed,
> > or PRs where the submitter has asked a question
> > or answered a question and the reviewers have abandoned the effort.  Not
> > that that ever happens.
> >
> > “A pull request where a review has been initiated will be considered
> > inactive if it is waiting on
> > reply or action on the part of the submitter and has had no activity by
> > that submitter in the previous six weeks”
> >
> > etc etc
> >
> >
> >
> >  A pull request is 'inactive' if no comments or updates have been made by
> > the submitter
> > in the previous 6 weeks
> >
> >
> > On April 13, 2018 at 14:44:40, Nick Allen (nick@nickallen.org) wrote:
> >
> > There are a fair number of inactive PRs in our queue that have little to
> no
> > chance of being merged. Tidying up our queue and keeping open only active
> > PRs should help the community better identify which PRs need reviewed and
> > actioned.
> >
> > If the original contributor does not close the PR, the only course of
> > action that we can take is to open an Apache Infra request to close the
> > PR. We have only ever done this after multiple failed attempts to contact
> > the original contributor.
> >
> > I suggest that we add to the Metron development guidelines [1] exactly
> how
> > inactive PRs should be handled.
> >
> > (Q1) Should we add to the development guidelines a process for handling
> > inactive PRs?
> >
> >
> >
> > Assuming there is support for this, I would suggest the following as a
> > first draft. These would serve as an addendum to section 2.6
> >
> > 2.6.1 Inactive Pull Requests
> >
> >
> > Contributions can often take a significant amount of time to complete the
> > code review process. This process requires active participation from the
> > contributor. If the contributor is unable to actively participate, the PR
> > is unlikely to successfully complete this process. Pull Requests that
> have
> > failed to receive active participation for an extended period of time
> risk
> > being treated as abandoned.
> >
> > Any committer can submit a request for Apache Infra to close a pull
> > request that has been abandoned according to the following guidelines.
> >
> >
> > - A pull request is 'inactive' if no comments or updates have been made
> > in the previous 6 weeks.
> >
> >
> > - For any 'inactive' pull request, a committer can request from the
> > contributor justification for keeping the pull request open.
> >
> >
> > - In that request, the committer should refer the contributor to these
> > development guidelines for inactive pull requests.
> >
> >
> > - If the contributor does not respond to the request within 2 additional
> > weeks, the committer should cast a -1 vote on the PR using these
> > development guidelines as justification.
> >
> >
> > - Any committer can then submit a request to Apache Infra to close the
> > PR based on this -1 vote.
> >
> >
> > ​(Q2) Assuming support for the idea, are these good guidelines? ​I offer
> > this only to help drive the discussion. I am open to alternatives.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/
> Development+Guidelines
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message