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 19:27:36 GMT
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