metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Inactive PRs
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:44:35 GMT
I'd could go for a 4 week window.

--

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
   by the contributor in the previous 4 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.



On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/Developme
>> nt+Guidelines
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

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