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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Reynold Xin <> 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:
For additional commands, e-mail: