Numpy pull requests getting out of hand.
Hi All, There are now 130 open numpy pull requests and it seems almost impossible to keep that number down. My personal decision is that I am going to ignore any new enhancements for the next couple of months and only merge bug fixes, tests, house keeping (style, docs, deprecations), and old PRs. I would also request that other maintainers start looking a taking care of older PRs, either cleaning them up and merging, or closing them. Chuck
FYI also useful to simply close by time - say older than 6 months with a message for the writer to reopen if they want to work on it then u don't get too many stale ones my 2c
On Jan 31, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
There are now 130 open numpy pull requests and it seems almost impossible to keep that number down. My personal decision is that I am going to ignore any new enhancements for the next couple of months and only merge bug fixes, tests, house keeping (style, docs, deprecations), and old PRs. I would also request that other maintainers start looking a taking care of older PRs, either cleaning them up and merging, or closing them.
Chuck _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
I don't like that approach, closing PRs with valuable code causes them to get lost in the much larger set of closed ones. Instead we could tag them appropriately so they can be found by parties interested in using or finishing them. These could also be used for new contributors to work on. You could also tag and close them, but I find it makes them harder to discover especially for outsiders who are not aware of this policy. Also we could extend our contribution guidelines to note that reviewing existing PRs can be a much more valuable contribution than adding new code. Possibly adding some review guidelines. On 31.01.2016 20:25, Jeff Reback wrote:
FYI also useful to simply close by time - say older than 6 months with a message for the writer to reopen if they want to work on it
then u don't get too many stale ones
my 2c
On Jan 31, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
There are now 130 open numpy pull requests and it seems almost impossible to keep that number down. My personal decision is that I am going to ignore any new enhancements for the next couple of months and only merge bug fixes, tests, house keeping (style, docs, deprecations), and old PRs. I would also request that other maintainers start looking a taking care of older PRs, either cleaning them up and merging, or closing them.
Chuck _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Julian Taylor <jtaylor.debian@googlemail.com> wrote:
I don't like that approach, closing PRs with valuable code causes them to get lost in the much larger set of closed ones. Instead we could tag them appropriately so they can be found by parties interested in using or finishing them. These could also be used for new contributors to work on. You could also tag and close them, but I find it makes them harder to discover especially for outsiders who are not aware of this policy.
Also we could extend our contribution guidelines to note that reviewing existing PRs can be a much more valuable contribution than adding new code. Possibly adding some review guidelines.
FWIW, I second this. http://scipy.github.io/devdocs/hacking.html mentions "Contributing new code" and "Contributing by helping maintain existing code". We should add "Contributing by reviewing open PRs" and "Contributing by rebasing stalled PRs". It's very much not obvious to would-be-contributors that either is welcome or that the latter is actually possible. I don't even think we need to detail guidelines too much, apart from stressing that we want to preserve the original commit authorship. And maybe "briefly introduce yourself if we don't know you yet". W.r.t. tagging, over at scipy we have a "needs-work" tag. As of today, there is also the "incomplete" tag, which I do not think conveys the message --- we should stress the call for action, not a limbo status. At a minimum, we could adopt a "needs-review" tag from e.g. matplotlib and introduce something like "up-for-grabs" or "needs-champion" tag. [Of course, the "we should" above is more like, "I think it might make sense for scipy, maybe also numpy could consider this". ] My 2 kopeiki, Evgeni
On 31.01.2016 20:25, Jeff Reback wrote:
FYI also useful to simply close by time - say older than 6 months with a message for the writer to reopen if they want to work on it
then u don't get too many stale ones
my 2c
On Jan 31, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
There are now 130 open numpy pull requests and it seems almost impossible to keep that number down. My personal decision is that I am going to ignore any new enhancements for the next couple of months and only merge bug fixes, tests, house keeping (style, docs, deprecations), and old PRs. I would also request that other maintainers start looking a taking care of older PRs, either cleaning them up and merging, or closing them.
Chuck _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
participants (4)
-
Charles R Harris -
Evgeni Burovski -
Jeff Reback -
Julian Taylor