+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Cuberite (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Development (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: More strict PR-handling proposal (/thread-2908.html)
Pages:
1
2
More strict PR-handling proposal - sphinxc0re - 02-25-2017
As I already mentioned:
I'd like to propose a more strict handling of open pull requests: When a PR is opened it will be getting closed after one month if it didn't got merged until then. This keeps out old and untouched PRs and might even speed up the development process. We could add a notice to the PR template on github. Thoughts?
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - xoft - 02-25-2017
A bit too strict. How about "one month after the last activity"? I don't think any kind of ahead-notice is needed, just a good message when closing the PR, along the lines of "Changes were requested before this PR could be merged, but there has been no activity for a month. Please consider changing the code as requested and then re-opening the PR."
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - sphinxc0re - 02-25-2017
@xoft You are right. Just going for the creation date of a PR won't do it. So 'last activity' seems fine to me. @bearbin would it be possible to make bearbot close PRs automatically with a notice?
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - yangm97 - 02-26-2017
Taken from github:
sphinxc0re Wrote:If your code is not ready
What’s ready?
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - LogicParrot - 02-26-2017
proposal:
1. if last activity > X days && !status/blocked then consider inactive and close.
2. Prior to closing, manually review, and if code deemed interesting, mark with status/extract useful bits
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - NiLSPACE - 02-26-2017
I don't think there is anything wrong with closing a PR. It can always be reopened once people start working on it again. It just means there the PR is inactive for quite a while, not abandoned, but inactive.
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - sphinxc0re - 02-26-2017
So why not mark those PRs as status/inactive and close them?
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - LogicParrot - 02-26-2017
I don't mind this anymore. As long as no useful code is lost do whatever you want.
If a closed abandoned PR has useful code, I think marking it with "status/extract useful bits" is a good idea.
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - xoft - 02-26-2017
"Extracting code" may be problematic authorship-wise.
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - LogicParrot - 03-03-2017
Good point.
I marked some of my closed PRs, no authorship problem there.