[IPython-dev] Policy for closing pull requests

Brian Granger ellisonbg at gmail.com
Tue Oct 2 16:21:01 EDT 2012


Please make edits if I have missed anything.

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> * What do we do about PRs that sit for a month waiting for review?
>>> We flog ourselves with a nail-studded whip and we review them :)
>> I went back and forth of this one.  I mostly agree with you.  But our
>> busy schedules and the large number of PRs definitely makes it a
>> challenge to review everything promptly.
> I know, this one is terrible.  I really hope we never reach that
> point, and that's why at least I think we can ask the wider list to
> pitch in with review if we're falling behind badly.  Because if it's
> only up to the core committers to keep the queue moving, we'll hit
> this bad scenario way too often.
>>> I want IPython to be a project where, if we have *one* policy, it's
>>> that intelligent discussion comes *always* before policy.
>> Yes, but part of my goal is that we can come up with a guidelines for
>> closing PRs that are simple, and don't require long discussions.  If I
> Oh, certainly: I think having guidelines like this *is* useful, as it
> lets us make frequent decisions fluidly.  This is similar to how we
> have other good dev guidelines that make the process easier for
> everyone.  I just don't want to go too far in the direction of policy
> overriding the notion that we're open to discussion *when discussion
> is really necessary*.  But if the guidelines are sensible, in the vast
> majority of cases they can just be applied/followed, no discussion is
> necessary and they just help keep the gears in motion.
>> or someone else adheres to these guidelines are you OK with PRs being
>> closed without first running it by all interested parties?  To
>> summarize, here are the main points:
>> * PRs that haven't been reviewed for a month should prompt us to kick
>> each other into gear.  We should ping each other, the list and
>> specific people if necessary to get the review going.  The PR remains
>> open and we apologize to the author for our slowness.
>> * PRs that have been reviewed, but that sit for a month waiting for
>> code get closed.
>> * PRs that spawn larger discussions that are not resolved after a
>> month get closed.
>> * The person who closes an issue must open an issue that links to the
> you mean 'who closes a  PR'
>> PR and tell the author that we welcome them to reopen the PR when they
>> start to work on it again.  If appropriate we can even give details of
>> the work that needs to be done.  But the tone must be one of
>> encouragement.  We can even site this guideline and our desire to keep
>> PRs moving.
> Yup, I think this is a *very* sensible set of guidelines, and I bet
> you we'll be able to follow them more or less automatically in most
> cases.
> And furthermore, it means we can have a little script that runs as a
> cron job somewhere and updates a little dashboard on the future wiki
> showing perhaps the state of the PR queue as a green/yellow/red grid:
> red ones are over one month of inactivity (hence candidates to go and
> close with the above process), yellow ones have say > 2 weeks of
> inactivity, and those with activity in the last two weeks are green.
> I'd really like to have a birds-eye view of the PR queue like that :)
> If in practice we find that it's too easy to 'refresh' a PR to green
> status because of an innocent comment that doesn't really add
> anything, we could tweak the above to be time since last pushed commit
> instead of time since last comment...  Just an idea...
> In any case, that was just me thinking about workflow tools.  But back
> to the basic point of this discussion, I'm +1 on the above summary.
> Thanks for taking this on!  It will help us to organize the flow better.
> Cheers,
> f
> _______________________________________________
> IPython-dev mailing list
> IPython-dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev

Brian E. Granger
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
bgranger at calpoly.edu and ellisonbg at gmail.com

More information about the IPython-dev mailing list