[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Yea, the bot they linked to sends a warning comment first.


On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Do you know if the bot can send a first "warn" comment before closing
the PR ?

I think that would be great: if the contributor is not active after the
warn message, then, it's fine to close the PR (the contributor can
always open a new one later if it makes sense).


On 14/05/2018 16:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Hi all,
> Spotted this thread on dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. I didn't make a combined thread because
> each project should discuss on our own.
> I think it would be great to share "stale PR closer bot" infrastructure
> (and this might naturally be a hook where we put other things / combine
> with merge-bot / etc).
> The downside to automation is being less empathetic - but hopefully for
> very stale PRs no one is really listening anyhow.
> Kenn
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Ufuk Celebi <uce@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:uce@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests
> To: <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Hey Piotr,
> thanks for bringing this up. I really like this proposal and also saw
> it work successfully at other projects. So +1 from my side.
> - I like the approach with a notification one week before
> automatically closing the PR
> - I think a bot will the best option as these kinds of things are
> usually followed enthusiastically in the beginning but eventually
> loose traction
> We can enable better integration with GitHub by using ASF GitBox
> (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/) but we should discuss that in a
> separate thread.
> – Ufuk
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Piotr Nowojski
> <piotr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:piotr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>  > Hey,
>  >
>  > We have lots of open pull requests and quite some of them are
> stale/abandoned/inactive. Often such old PRs are impossible to merge due
> to conflicts and it’s easier to just abandon and rewrite them.
> Especially there are some PRs which original contributor created long
> time ago, someone else wrote some comments/review and… that’s about it.
> Original contributor never shown up again to respond to the comments.
> Regardless of the reason such PRs are clogging the GitHub, making it
> difficult to keep track of things and making it almost impossible to
> find a little bit old (for example 3+ months) PRs that are still valid
> and waiting for reviews. To do something like that, one would have to
> dig through tens or hundreds of abandoned PRs.
>  >
>  > What I would like to propose is to agree on some inactivity dead
> line, lets say 3 months. After crossing such deadline, PRs should be
> marked/commented as “stale”, with information like:
>  >
>  > “This pull request has been marked as stale due to 3 months of
> inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs.
> If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review,
> please simply write any comment.”
>  >
>  > Either we could just agree on such policy and enforce it manually
> (maybe with some simple tooling, like a simple script to list inactive
> PRs - seems like couple of lines in python by using PyGithub) or we
> could think about automating this action. There are some bots that do
> exactly this (like this one: https://github.com/probot/stale
> <https://github.com/probot/stale> ), but probably they would need to be
> adopted to limitations of our Apache repository (we can not add labels
> and we can not close the PRs via GitHub).
>  >
>  > What do you think about it?
>  >
>  > Piotrek