spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com>
Subject Re: auto closing pull requests that have been inactive > 30 days?
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:43:33 GMT
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
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message