spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?
Date Tue, 19 Apr 2016 02:25:33 GMT
I also think this might not have to be closed only because it is inactive.


How about closing issues after 30 days when a committer's comment is added
at the last without responses from the author?


IMHO, If the committers are not sure whether the patch would be useful,
then I think they should leave some comments why they are not sure, not
just ignoring.

Or, simply they could ask the author to prove that the patch is useful or
safe with some references and tests.


I think it might be nicer than that users are supposed to keep pinging.
**Personally**, apparently, I am sometimes a bit worried if pinging
multiple times can be a bit annoying.



2016-04-19 9:56 GMT+09:00 Saisai Shao <sai.sai.shao@gmail.com>:

> It would be better to have a specific technical reason why this PR should
> be closed, either the implementation is not good or the problem is not
> valid, or something else. That will actually help the contributor to shape
> their codes and reopen the PR again. Otherwise reasons like "feel free to
> reopen for so-and-so reason" is actually discouraging and no difference
> than directly close the PR.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Thanks
> Jerry
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Having a PR closed, especially if due to committers not having hte
>> bandwidth to check on things, will be very discouraging to new folks.
>> Doubly so for those inexperienced with opensource. Even if the message
>> says "feel free to reopen for so-and-so reason", new folks who lack
>> confidence are going to see reopening as "pestering" and busy folks
>> are going to see it as a clear indication that their work is not even
>> valuable enough for a human to give a reason for closing. In either
>> case, the cost of reopening is substantially higher than that button
>> press.
>>
>> How about we start by keeping a report of "at-risk" PRs that have been
>> stale for 30 days to make it easier for committers to look at the prs
>> that have been long inactive?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com> wrote:
>> > The cost of "reopen" is close to zero, because it is just clicking a
>> button.
>> > I think you were referring to the cost of closing the pull request, and
>> you
>> > are assuming people look at the pull requests that have been inactive
>> for a
>> > long time. That seems equally likely (or unlikely) as committers
>> looking at
>> > the recently closed pull requests.
>> >
>> > In either case, most pull requests are scanned through by us when they
>> are
>> > first open, and if they are important enough, usually they get merged
>> > quickly or a target version is set in JIRA. We can definitely improve
>> that
>> > by making it more explicit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From committers' perspective, would they look at closed PRs ?
>> >>
>> >> If not, the cost is not close to zero.
>> >> Meaning, some potentially useful PRs would never see the light of day.
>> >>
>> >> My two cents.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Part of it is how difficult it is to automate this. We can build a
>> >>> perfect engine with a lot of rules that understand everything. But
>> the more
>> >>> complicated rules we need, the more unlikely for any of these to
>> happen. So
>> >>> I'd rather do this and create a nice enough message to tell
>> contributors
>> >>> sometimes mistake happen but the cost to reopen is approximately zero
>> (i.e.
>> >>> click a button on the pull request).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> bq. close the ones where they don't respond for a week
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does this imply that the script understands response from human
?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Meaning, would the script use some regex which signifies that the
>> >>>> contributor is willing to close the PR ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If the contributor is willing to close, why wouldn't he / she do
it
>> >>>> him/herself ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Holden Karau <holden@pigscanfly.ca
>> >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Personally I'd rather err on the side of keeping PRs open, but
I
>> >>>>> understand wanting to keep the open PRs limited to ones which
have a
>> >>>>> reasonable chance of being merged.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What about if we filtered for non-mergeable PRs or instead left
a
>> >>>>> comment asking the author to respond if they are still available
to
>> move the
>> >>>>> PR forward - and close the ones where they don't respond for
a week?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Just a suggestion.
>> >>>>> On Monday, April 18, 2016, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I had one PR which got merged after 3 months.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If the inactivity was due to contributor, I think it can
be closed
>> >>>>>> after 30 days.
>> >>>>>> But if the inactivity was due to lack of review, the PR
should be
>> kept
>> >>>>>> open.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Cody Koeninger <
>> cody@koeninger.org>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> For what it's worth, I have definitely had PRs that
sat inactive
>> for
>> >>>>>>> more than 30 days due to committers not having time
to look at
>> them,
>> >>>>>>> but did eventually end up successfully being merged.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I guess if this just ends up being a committer ping
and reopening
>> the
>> >>>>>>> PR, it's fine, but I don't know if it really addresses
the
>> underlying
>> >>>>>>> issue.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <rxin@databricks.com
>> >
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> > We have hit a new high in open pull requests: 469
today. While
>> we
>> >>>>>>> > can
>> >>>>>>> > certainly get more review bandwidth, many of these
are old and
>> >>>>>>> > still open
>> >>>>>>> > for other reasons. Some are stale because the original
authors
>> have
>> >>>>>>> > become
>> >>>>>>> > busy and inactive, and some others are stale because
the
>> committers
>> >>>>>>> > are not
>> >>>>>>> > sure whether the patch would be useful, but have
not rejected
>> the
>> >>>>>>> > patch
>> >>>>>>> > explicitly. We can cut down the signal to noise
ratio by closing
>> >>>>>>> > pull
>> >>>>>>> > requests that have been inactive for greater than
30 days, with
>> a
>> >>>>>>> > nice
>> >>>>>>> > message. I just checked and this would close ~
half of the pull
>> >>>>>>> > requests.
>> >>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>> > For example:
>> >>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>> > "Thank you for creating this pull request. Since
this pull
>> request
>> >>>>>>> > has been
>> >>>>>>> > inactive for 30 days, we are automatically closing
it. Closing
>> the
>> >>>>>>> > pull
>> >>>>>>> > request does not remove it from history and will
retain all the
>> >>>>>>> > diff and
>> >>>>>>> > review comments. If you have the bandwidth and
would like to
>> >>>>>>> > continue
>> >>>>>>> > pushing this forward, please reopen it. Thanks
again!"
>> >>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@spark.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Cell : 425-233-8271
>> >>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> busbey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@spark.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message