Posts: 681
Threads: 26
Joined: May 2014
Thanks: 112
Given 47 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: 176
Joined: Jan 2012
Thanks: 131
Given 1071 thank(s) in 851 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: 113
Given 130 thank(s) in 91 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: 4,624
Threads: 115
Joined: Dec 2011
Thanks: 693
Given 493 thank(s) in 422 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: 112
Given 47 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: 113
Given 130 thank(s) in 91 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: 176
Joined: Jan 2012
Thanks: 131
Given 1071 thank(s) in 851 post(s)
"Extracting code" may be problematic authorship-wise.
Posts: 721
Threads: 77
Joined: Apr 2014
Thanks: 113
Given 130 thank(s) in 91 post(s)
Good point.
I marked some of my closed PRs, no authorship problem there.