Posts: 681
Threads: 26
Joined: May 2014
Thanks: 0
Given 8 thank(s) in 37 post(s)
02-25-2017, 06:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-25-2017, 07:47 PM by sphinxc0re.)
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?
Posts: 6,485
Threads: 175
Joined: Jan 2012
Thanks: 40
Given 156 thank(s) in 838 post(s)
02-25-2017, 09:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2017, 02:06 AM by xoft.)
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."
Posts: 721
Threads: 77
Joined: Apr 2014
Thanks: 0
Given 8 thank(s) in 89 post(s)
02-26-2017, 03:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2017, 05:47 AM by LogicParrot.)
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
Posts: 4,621
Threads: 113
Joined: Dec 2011
Thanks: 51
Given 55 thank(s) in 409 post(s)
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.
Posts: 681
Threads: 26
Joined: May 2014
Thanks: 0
Given 8 thank(s) in 37 post(s)
So why not mark those PRs as status/inactive and close them?
Posts: 721
Threads: 77
Joined: Apr 2014
Thanks: 0
Given 8 thank(s) in 89 post(s)
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.
Posts: 6,485
Threads: 175
Joined: Jan 2012
Thanks: 40
Given 156 thank(s) in 838 post(s)
"Extracting code" may be problematic authorship-wise.
Posts: 721
Threads: 77
Joined: Apr 2014
Thanks: 0
Given 8 thank(s) in 89 post(s)
Good point.
I marked some of my closed PRs, no authorship problem there.