Clean up of our PRs and IEPs before 2019

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Alexey,

Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do
you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long
(3-6 months)?.

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:

>
> Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
>
> If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning", we should
> provide next options
>
>    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments for
>    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
>    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with clarification
>    of our goals
>    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's author
>
> The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module and area
> with tags "obsolete" or something else.
>
> P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and the
> principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by myself
> above
>
> I hope that we will be careful with our community
>
> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH & Apache
> > accounts.
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> >
> > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other contributor) PR to
> > > apache/ignite?
> > >
> > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > NIkolay,
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > >
> > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other contributors?
> > > > >
> > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup.
> > Additionally
> > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are slowed down
> > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an opinion about
> > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise criteria to
> > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several reasons:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a BAD thing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with *YOUR OWN*
> > PRs.
> > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to master.
> > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well) consumes huge
> > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect operations (every
> > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, but
> > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning up and
> > keeping
> > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to review the
> > > rest.
> > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another, let's
> > solve
> > > real problem:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make our code base
> > > clear.
> > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other Apache
> > projects
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет:
> > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we should keep
> > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets, this can be
> > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my first
> > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process. In my mind
> > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well the real
> > work
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more
> > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind? Immediately I
> > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not touched
> > more
> > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that newcomer will
> > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to provide a
> > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA state goes
> > down
> > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state). But 1428
> > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of incomplete PRs.
> > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if there are any
> > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket with PA
> > status,
> > > we will
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be applied to the
> > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses. If you
> > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to date.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became concerned
> > > about many
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also performs
> > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are waiting for
> > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your PRs in
> > Apache
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close every not
> > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses. If you
> > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate
> > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

[Alexey Zinoviev]

The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of community
members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with human
events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays, wedding, spam
filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I mentioned)

From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the shorter
period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
Robot could wait, I hope:)

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:

> Alexey,
>
> Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do
> you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long
> (3-6 months)?.
>
> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> >
> > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning", we
> should
> > provide next options
> >
> >    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments for
> >    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> >    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with clarification
> >    of our goals
> >    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's author
> >
> > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module and area
> > with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> >
> > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and the
> > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by myself
> > above
> >
> > I hope that we will be careful with our community
> >
> > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH & Apache
> > > accounts.
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > >
> > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other contributor) PR
> to
> > > > apache/ignite?
> > > >
> > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > NIkolay,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other contributors?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup.
> > > Additionally
> > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are slowed
> down
> > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an opinion
> about
> > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise criteria
> to
> > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several reasons:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a BAD
> thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with *YOUR
> OWN*
> > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to master.
> > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well) consumes
> huge
> > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect operations
> (every
> > > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of bureaucracy,
> but
> > > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning up and
> > > keeping
> > > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to review
> the
> > > > rest.
> > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another, let's
> > > solve
> > > > real problem:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make our code
> base
> > > > clear.
> > > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other Apache
> > > projects
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we should
> keep
> > > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets, this can
> be
> > > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my first
> > > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process. In my
> mind
> > > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well the real
> > > work
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more
> > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> Immediately I
> > > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not touched
> > > more
> > > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that newcomer
> will
> > > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to
> provide a
> > > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA state goes
> > > down
> > > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state). But
> 1428
> > > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of incomplete PRs.
> > > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if there are
> any
> > > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket with PA
> > > status,
> > > > we will
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be applied
> to the
> > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses. If
> you
> > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became
> concerned
> > > > about many
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also
> performs
> > > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are waiting
> for
> > > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your PRs in
> > > Apache
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close every not
> > > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses. If
> you
> > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't
> hesitate
> > > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Alexey,

second need it to check all open PRs from community members for fixes,
which could be merged to Ignite codebase.

Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I ask
everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
opened.

The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide visas
to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should take it
into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would like to
automate this process as much as possible.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:

> The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of community
> members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with human
> events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays, wedding, spam
> filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I mentioned)
>
> From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the shorter
> period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> Robot could wait, I hope:)
>
> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Alexey,
> >
> > Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do
> > you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long
> > (3-6 months)?.
> >
> > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> > >
> > > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning", we
> > should
> > > provide next options
> > >
> > >    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments for
> > >    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> > >    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> clarification
> > >    of our goals
> > >    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's
> author
> > >
> > > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module and
> area
> > > with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> > >
> > > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and the
> > > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by
> myself
> > > above
> > >
> > > I hope that we will be careful with our community
> > >
> > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH & Apache
> > > > accounts.
> > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > > >
> > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other contributor) PR
> > to
> > > > > apache/ignite?
> > > > >
> > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > NIkolay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other contributors?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup.
> > > > Additionally
> > > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are
> slowed
> > down
> > > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an opinion
> > about
> > > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise criteria
> > to
> > > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> reasons:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> > bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a BAD
> > thing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with *YOUR
> > OWN*
> > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to master.
> > > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well) consumes
> > huge
> > > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect operations
> > (every
> > > > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> bureaucracy,
> > but
> > > > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning up and
> > > > keeping
> > > > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to review
> > the
> > > > > rest.
> > > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another,
> let's
> > > > solve
> > > > > real problem:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make our code
> > base
> > > > > clear.
> > > > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other Apache
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we should
> > keep
> > > > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets, this can
> > be
> > > > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my
> first
> > > > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process. In my
> > mind
> > > > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well the
> real
> > > > work
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more
> > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> > Immediately I
> > > > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not
> touched
> > > > more
> > > > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that
> newcomer
> > will
> > > > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to
> > provide a
> > > > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA state
> goes
> > > > down
> > > > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state). But
> > 1428
> > > > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of incomplete
> PRs.
> > > > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if there are
> > any
> > > > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket with PA
> > > > status,
> > > > > we will
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be applied
> > to the
> > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses.
> If
> > you
> > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to
> date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became
> > concerned
> > > > > about many
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also
> > performs
> > > > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are waiting
> > for
> > > > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your PRs in
> > > > Apache
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close every not
> > > > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses.
> If
> > you
> > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't
> > hesitate
> > > > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

[Mmuzaf]

Folks,

Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close unused
PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
will respond quite fast.

I've briefly checked GitHub:

dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> second need it to check all open PRs from community members for fixes,
> which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
>
> Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I ask
> everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
> opened.
>
> The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide visas
> to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should take it
> into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would like to
> automate this process as much as possible.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
>
> > The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of community
> > members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with human
> > events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays, wedding, spam
> > filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I mentioned)
> >
> > From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the shorter
> > period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> > Robot could wait, I hope:)
> >
> > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Alexey,
> > >
> > > Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do
> > > you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long
> > > (3-6 months)?.
> > >
> > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> > > >
> > > > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning", we
> > > should
> > > > provide next options
> > > >
> > > >    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments for
> > > >    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> > > >    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> > clarification
> > > >    of our goals
> > > >    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's
> > author
> > > >
> > > > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module and
> > area
> > > > with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and the
> > > > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by
> > myself
> > > > above
> > > >
> > > > I hope that we will be careful with our community
> > > >
> > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH & Apache
> > > > > accounts.
> > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other contributor) PR
> > > to
> > > > > > apache/ignite?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > NIkolay,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other contributors?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup.
> > > > > Additionally
> > > > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are
> > slowed
> > > down
> > > > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an opinion
> > > about
> > > > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise criteria
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> > reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> > > bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a BAD
> > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with *YOUR
> > > OWN*
> > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to master.
> > > > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well) consumes
> > > huge
> > > > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect operations
> > > (every
> > > > > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> > bureaucracy,
> > > but
> > > > > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning up and
> > > > > keeping
> > > > > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to review
> > > the
> > > > > > rest.
> > > > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another,
> > let's
> > > > > solve
> > > > > > real problem:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make our code
> > > base
> > > > > > clear.
> > > > > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other Apache
> > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we should
> > > keep
> > > > > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets, this can
> > > be
> > > > > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my
> > first
> > > > > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process. In my
> > > mind
> > > > > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well the
> > real
> > > > > work
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more
> > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> > > Immediately I
> > > > > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not
> > touched
> > > > > more
> > > > > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that
> > newcomer
> > > will
> > > > > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to
> > > provide a
> > > > > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA state
> > goes
> > > > > down
> > > > > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state). But
> > > 1428
> > > > > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of incomplete
> > PRs.
> > > > > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if there are
> > > any
> > > > > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket with PA
> > > > > status,
> > > > > > we will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be applied
> > > to the
> > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses.
> > If
> > > you
> > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to
> > date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became
> > > concerned
> > > > > > about many
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also
> > > performs
> > > > > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are waiting
> > > for
> > > > > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your PRs in
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close every not
> > > > > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP statuses.
> > If
> > > you
> > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't
> > > hesitate
> > > > > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Folks, please close not needed PRs.

I don't have contact with Pyatkov & dkarachentsev. Folks, please step in.
Also, feel free to reopen PRs if you still want change to be merged.

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:39, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

> Folks,
>
> Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close unused
> PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
> will respond quite fast.
>
> I've briefly checked GitHub:
>
> dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
> ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
> dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
> mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
> ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
> vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexey,
> >
> > second need it to check all open PRs from community members for fixes,
> > which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
> >
> > Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I ask
> > everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
> > opened.
> >
> > The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide visas
> > to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should take
> it
> > into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would like to
> > automate this process as much as possible.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of community
> > > members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with human
> > > events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays, wedding,
> spam
> > > filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I
> mentioned)
> > >
> > > From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the shorter
> > > period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> > > Robot could wait, I hope:)
> > >
> > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Alexey,
> > > >
> > > > Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do
> > > > you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long
> > > > (3-6 months)?.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> > > > >
> > > > > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning",
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > provide next options
> > > > >
> > > > >    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments
> for
> > > > >    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> > > > >    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> > > clarification
> > > > >    of our goals
> > > > >    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's
> > > author
> > > > >
> > > > > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module
> and
> > > area
> > > > > with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and
> the
> > > > > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by
> > > myself
> > > > > above
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope that we will be careful with our community
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH &
> Apache
> > > > > > accounts.
> > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other
> contributor) PR
> > > > to
> > > > > > > apache/ignite?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > NIkolay,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other
> contributors?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup.
> > > > > > Additionally
> > > > > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are
> > > slowed
> > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an
> opinion
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise
> criteria
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as
> well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> > > reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> > > > bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a
> BAD
> > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with
> *YOUR
> > > > OWN*
> > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to
> master.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well)
> consumes
> > > > huge
> > > > > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect
> operations
> > > > (every
> > > > > > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> > > bureaucracy,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning
> up and
> > > > > > keeping
> > > > > > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to
> review
> > > > the
> > > > > > > rest.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another,
> > > let's
> > > > > > solve
> > > > > > > real problem:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make our
> code
> > > > base
> > > > > > > clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other
> Apache
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we
> should
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets,
> this can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my
> > > first
> > > > > > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process.
> In my
> > > > mind
> > > > > > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well
> the
> > > real
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more
> > > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> > > > Immediately I
> > > > > > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not
> > > touched
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that
> > > newcomer
> > > > will
> > > > > > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to
> > > > provide a
> > > > > > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA
> state
> > > goes
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state).
> But
> > > > 1428
> > > > > > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of
> incomplete
> > > PRs.
> > > > > > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > > > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if
> there are
> > > > any
> > > > > > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket
> with PA
> > > > > > status,
> > > > > > > we will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be
> applied
> > > > to the
> > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP
> statuses.
> > > If
> > > > you
> > > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to
> > > date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became
> > > > concerned
> > > > > > > about many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also
> > > > performs
> > > > > > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are
> waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your
> PRs in
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close every
> not
> > > > > > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP
> statuses.
> > > If
> > > > you
> > > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't
> > > > hesitate
> > > > > > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
>

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Maxim,

Quite a nice idea. Could we go even further? Add a comment to each 1-2
year old PR asking if the author could close it (most likely with help
of some automation). As I know GitHub sends emails with PR comments to
authors.

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:05, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

>
> Folks, please close not needed PRs.
>
> I don't have contact with Pyatkov & dkarachentsev. Folks, please step in.
> Also, feel free to reopen PRs if you still want change to be merged.
>
> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:39, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close unused
> > PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
> > will respond quite fast.
> >
> > I've briefly checked GitHub:
> >
> > dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
> > ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
> > dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
> > mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
> > ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
> > vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > >
> > > second need it to check all open PRs from community members for fixes,
> > > which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
> > >
> > > Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I ask
> > > everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
> > > opened.
> > >
> > > The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide visas
> > > to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should take
> > it
> > > into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would like to
> > > automate this process as much as possible.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of community
> > > > members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with human
> > > > events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays, wedding,
> > spam
> > > > filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I
> > mentioned)
> > > >
> > > > From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the shorter
> > > > period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> > > > Robot could wait, I hope:)
> > > >
> > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Alexey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious, why do
> > > > > you think that a period before actions are taken should be so long
> > > > > (3-6 months)?.
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic "cleaning",
> > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > provide next options
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving comments
> > for
> > > > > >    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> > > > > >    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> > > > clarification
> > > > > >    of our goals
> > > > > >    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each PR's
> > > > author
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each module
> > and
> > > > area
> > > > > > with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community and
> > the
> > > > > > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested by
> > > > myself
> > > > > > above
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope that we will be careful with our community
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH &
> > Apache
> > > > > > > accounts.
> > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other
> > contributor) PR
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > apache/ignite?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > NIkolay,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other
> > contributors?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs cleanup.
> > > > > > > Additionally
> > > > > > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations are
> > > > slowed
> > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an
> > opinion
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise
> > criteria
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> > > > reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> > > > > bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is a
> > BAD
> > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with
> > *YOUR
> > > > > OWN*
> > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to
> > master.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well)
> > consumes
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect
> > operations
> > > > > (every
> > > > > > > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> > > > bureaucracy,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > part of the project development workflow in area of cleaning
> > up and
> > > > > > > keeping
> > > > > > > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to
> > review
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > rest.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or another,
> > > > let's
> > > > > > > solve
> > > > > > > > real problem:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make our
> > code
> > > > > base
> > > > > > > > clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other
> > Apache
> > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we
> > should
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets,
> > this can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open PRs my
> > > > first
> > > > > > > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review process.
> > In my
> > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very well
> > the
> > > > real
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become more
> > > > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> > > > > Immediately I
> > > > > > > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were not
> > > > touched
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that
> > > > newcomer
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best to
> > > > > provide a
> > > > > > > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA
> > state
> > > > goes
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA state).
> > But
> > > > > 1428
> > > > > > > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of
> > incomplete
> > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > > > > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if
> > there are
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket
> > with PA
> > > > > > > status,
> > > > > > > > we will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be
> > applied
> > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP
> > statuses.
> > > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description up to
> > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes became
> > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > about many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot also
> > > > > performs
> > > > > > > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are
> > waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of your
> > PRs in
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close every
> > not
> > > > > > > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP
> > statuses.
> > > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please don't
> > > > > hesitate
> > > > > > > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >
> > > >
> >

--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

Folks,

Is it possible just to ignore obsolete PRs somehow?
Not sure this crusade worth it.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:18 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maxim,
>
> Quite a nice idea. Could we go even further? Add a comment to each 1-2
> year old PR asking if the author could close it (most likely with help
> of some automation). As I know GitHub sends emails with PR comments to
> authors.
>
> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:05, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Folks, please close not needed PRs.
> >
> > I don't have contact with Pyatkov & dkarachentsev. Folks, please step in.
> > Also, feel free to reopen PRs if you still want change to be merged.
> >
> > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:39, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close unused
> > > PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
> > > will respond quite fast.
> > >
> > > I've briefly checked GitHub:
> > >
> > > dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
> > > ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
> > > dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
> > > mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
> > > ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
> > > vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs
> > >
> > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > >
> > > > second need it to check all open PRs from community members for
> fixes,
> > > > which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I
> ask
> > > > everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
> > > > opened.
> > > >
> > > > The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide
> visas
> > > > to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should
> take
> > > it
> > > > into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would
> like to
> > > > automate this process as much as possible.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of
> community
> > > > > members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with
> human
> > > > > events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays,
> wedding,
> > > spam
> > > > > filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I
> > > mentioned)
> > > > >
> > > > > From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the
> shorter
> > > > > period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> > > > > Robot could wait, I hope:)
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious,
> why do
> > > > > > you think that a period before actions are taken should be so
> long
> > > > > > (3-6 months)?.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic
> "cleaning",
> > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > provide next options
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving
> comments
> > > for
> > > > > > >    useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> > > > > > >    - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> > > > > clarification
> > > > > > >    of our goals
> > > > > > >    - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each
> PR's
> > > > > author
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each
> module
> > > and
> > > > > area
> > > > > > > with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested
> by
> > > > > myself
> > > > > > > above
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope that we will be careful with our community
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH &
> > > Apache
> > > > > > > > accounts.
> > > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do someone have permission to close my(or any other
> > > contributor) PR
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > apache/ignite?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > NIkolay,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you mean technical ability?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we have the ability to close PRs from other
> > > contributors?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  I would like to resume a discussion about PRs
> cleanup.
> > > > > > > > Additionally
> > > > > > > > > > > > to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations
> are
> > > > > slowed
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > > > due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an
> > > opinion
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise
> > > criteria
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion
> as
> > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> > > > > reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> > > > > > bureaucracy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my experience - not required bureaucracy is
> a
> > > BAD
> > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there are many patterns of dealing with
> > > *YOUR
> > > > > > OWN*
> > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to
> > > master.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whats wrong with it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What problem we trying to solve?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But I see.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well)
> > > consumes
> > > > > > huge
> > > > > > > > > amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect
> > > operations
> > > > > > (every
> > > > > > > > > minute, BTW).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> > > > > bureaucracy,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > part of the project development workflow in area of
> cleaning
> > > up and
> > > > > > > > keeping
> > > > > > > > > everything fresh and actual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to
> > > review
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > rest.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of ordering something to one way or
> another,
> > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > solve
> > > > > > > > > real problem:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >       - help the community doing PR review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >       - fixing failing tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >       - introducing new code inspections to make
> our
> > > code
> > > > > > base
> > > > > > > > > clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >       - making Ignite improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other
> > > Apache
> > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn
> пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we
> > > should
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > them in order.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets,
> > > this can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > done with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simple script.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open
> PRs my
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > thought was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that something was wrong with a review
> process.
> > > In my
> > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > in not very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > big project open PR list can reflect very
> well
> > > the
> > > > > real
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > progress. For bigger projects things become
> more
> > > > > > > > complicated.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> > > > > > Immediately I
> > > > > > > > > think that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is fully safe to close all PRs that were
> not
> > > > > touched
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > than a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main concern is related to chances that
> > > > > newcomer
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > have to obtain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review support from the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, a lot of people doing their best
> to
> > > > > > provide a
> > > > > > > > > feedback to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > newcomers, and count of issues still in PA
> > > state
> > > > > goes
> > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > (84 is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relatively small count of issues in PA
> state).
> > > But
> > > > > > 1428
> > > > > > > > > PRs may imply we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't review here, as we have tons of
> > > incomplete
> > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > Actually, most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these PRs were merged (but not using
> > > > > > > > > ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > manually, without reference to PRs).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit of revising this list, if
> > > there are
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > changes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were not accomplished with a proper ticket
> > > with PA
> > > > > > > > status,
> > > > > > > > > we will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a number of additional contributions to be
> > > applied
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > codebase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay
> Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Dmitriy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with opened PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP
> > > statuses.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. We should maintain IEP description
> up to
> > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes
> became
> > > > > > concerned
> > > > > > > > > about many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot
> also
> > > > > > performs
> > > > > > > > > runs checks with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are
> > > waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > review.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please verify the list of
> your
> > > PRs in
> > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pulls  and close
> every
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > needed/already merged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same proposal is related to IEP
> > > statuses.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > were involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP, please validate its status here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set a correct state for your IEP, as
> well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions, please
> don't
> > > > > > hesitate
> > > > > > > > > to ask here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

[vveider]

Anton,


Maintaining order always worth it.
If we did not made this mess initially, no crusade would be required now.
And closing PRs after merge or some decent waiting period of inactivity seems to be at least sign of respect to each other of our community.

Anyway, looks like that this task can be done in half-lazy pace without much of the disturbance to anyone.

> On 25 Jul 2019, at 13:44, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Is it possible just to ignore obsolete PRs somehow?
> Not sure this crusade worth it.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:18 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Maxim,
>>
>> Quite a nice idea. Could we go even further? Add a comment to each 1-2
>> year old PR asking if the author could close it (most likely with help
>> of some automation). As I know GitHub sends emails with PR comments to
>> authors.
>>
>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:05, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> Folks, please close not needed PRs.
>>>
>>> I don't have contact with Pyatkov & dkarachentsev. Folks, please step in.
>>> Also, feel free to reopen PRs if you still want change to be merged.
>>>
>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:39, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close unused
>>>> PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
>>>> will respond quite fast.
>>>>
>>>> I've briefly checked GitHub:
>>>>
>>>> dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
>>>> ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
>>>> dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
>>>> mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
>>>> ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
>>>> vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>>>
>>>>> second need it to check all open PRs from community members for
>> fixes,
>>>>> which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I
>> ask
>>>>> everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
>>>>> opened.
>>>>>
>>>>> The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide
>> visas
>>>>> to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should
>> take
>>>> it
>>>>> into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would
>> like to
>>>>> automate this process as much as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>
>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]
>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of
>> community
>>>>>> members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with
>> human
>>>>>> events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays,
>> wedding,
>>>> spam
>>>>>> filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I
>>>> mentioned)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the
>> shorter
>>>>>> period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
>>>>>> Robot could wait, I hope:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alexey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious,
>> why do
>>>>>>> you think that a period before actions are taken should be so
>> long
>>>>>>> (3-6 months)?.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <
>> [hidden email]
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic
>> "cleaning",
>>>> we
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> provide next options
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving
>> comments
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>   useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
>>>>>>>>   - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
>>>>>> clarification
>>>>>>>>   of our goals
>>>>>>>>   - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each
>> PR's
>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each
>> module
>>>> and
>>>>>> area
>>>>>>>> with tags "obsolete" or something else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community
>> and
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested
>> by
>>>>>> myself
>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope that we will be careful with our community
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH &
>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>> accounts.
>>>>>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do someone have permission to close my(or any other
>>>> contributor) PR
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> apache/ignite?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>> NIkolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean technical ability?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ivan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have the ability to close PRs from other
>>>> contributors?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to resume a discussion about PRs
>> cleanup.
>>>>>>>>> Additionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations
>> are
>>>>>> slowed
>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to a huge amount of open PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an
>>>> opinion
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise
>>>> criteria
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion
>> as
>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ivan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
>>>>>> reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
>>>>>>> bureaucracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From my experience - not required bureaucracy is
>> a
>>>> BAD
>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe there are many patterns of dealing with
>>>> *YOUR
>>>>>>> OWN*
>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to
>>>> master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whats wrong with it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem we trying to solve?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well)
>>>> consumes
>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>> amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect
>>>> operations
>>>>>>> (every
>>>>>>>>>> minute, BTW).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
>>>>>> bureaucracy,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> part of the project development workflow in area of
>> cleaning
>>>> up and
>>>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>> everything fresh and actual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to
>>>> review
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of ordering something to one way or
>> another,
>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>> real problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - help the community doing PR review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - fixing failing tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - introducing new code inspections to make
>> our
>>>> code
>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - making Ignite improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other
>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn
>> пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we
>>>> should
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> them in order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets,
>>>> this can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> done with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple script.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open
>> PRs my
>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>> thought was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that something was wrong with a review
>> process.
>>>> In my
>>>>>>> mind
>>>>>>>>>> in not very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big project open PR list can reflect very
>> well
>>>> the
>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress. For bigger projects things become
>> more
>>>>>>>>> complicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
>>>>>>> Immediately I
>>>>>>>>>> think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is fully safe to close all PRs that were
>> not
>>>>>> touched
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main concern is related to chances that
>>>>>> newcomer
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> have to obtain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review support from the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, a lot of people doing their best
>> to
>>>>>>> provide a
>>>>>>>>>> feedback to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newcomers, and count of issues still in PA
>>>> state
>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>>>> (84 is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively small count of issues in PA
>> state).
>>>> But
>>>>>>> 1428
>>>>>>>>>> PRs may imply we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't review here, as we have tons of
>>>> incomplete
>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, most of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these PRs were merged (but not using
>>>>>>>>>> ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually, without reference to PRs).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another benefit of revising this list, if
>>>> there are
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> changes which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were not accomplished with a proper ticket
>>>> with PA
>>>>>>>>> status,
>>>>>>>>>> we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a number of additional contributions to be
>>>> applied
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay
>> Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Dmitriy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What, exactly concerns newcomers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with opened PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How project will benefit from closed PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same proposal is related to IEP
>>>> statuses.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> were involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEP, please validate its status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. We should maintain IEP description
>> up to
>>>>>> date.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes
>> became
>>>>>>> concerned
>>>>>>>>>> about many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot
>> also
>>>>>>> performs
>>>>>>>>>> runs checks with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open. Apache Ignite pulls list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are
>>>> waiting
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please verify the list of
>> your
>>>> PRs in
>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulls  and close
>> every
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> needed/already merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same proposal is related to IEP
>>>> statuses.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> were involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEP, please validate its status here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a correct state for your IEP, as
>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you have any questions, please
>> don't
>>>>>>> hesitate
>>>>>>>>>> to ask here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in advance!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

Peter,

Not sure I've got how you're going to keep this ok in future.
This crusade is useful only in case you have the plan.

>> And closing PRs after merge or some decent waiting period of inactivity
seems to be at least sign of respect to each other of our community.
We have to find an easy (automated) way instead of respectful :)
For example, PRs should be automatically closed once issue resolved.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:42 PM Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anton,
>
>
> Maintaining order always worth it.
> If we did not made this mess initially, no crusade would be required now.
> And closing PRs after merge or some decent waiting period of inactivity
> seems to be at least sign of respect to each other of our community.
>
> Anyway, looks like that this task can be done in half-lazy pace without
> much of the disturbance to anyone.
>
>
> > On 25 Jul 2019, at 13:44, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Is it possible just to ignore obsolete PRs somehow?
> > Not sure this crusade worth it.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:18 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Maxim,
> >>
> >> Quite a nice idea. Could we go even further? Add a comment to each 1-2
> >> year old PR asking if the author could close it (most likely with help
> >> of some automation). As I know GitHub sends emails with PR comments to
> >> authors.
> >>
> >> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:05, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>
> >>> Folks, please close not needed PRs.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have contact with Pyatkov & dkarachentsev. Folks, please step
> in.
> >>> Also, feel free to reopen PRs if you still want change to be merged.
> >>>
> >>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:39, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>
> >>>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close unused
> >>>> PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
> >>>> will respond quite fast.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've briefly checked GitHub:
> >>>>
> >>>> dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
> >>>> ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
> >>>> dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
> >>>> mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
> >>>> ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
> >>>> vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Alexey,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> second need it to check all open PRs from community members for
> >> fixes,
> >>>>> which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I
> >> ask
> >>>>> everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs remained
> >>>>> opened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide
> >> visas
> >>>>> to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should
> >> take
> >>>> it
> >>>>> into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would
> >> like to
> >>>>> automate this process as much as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>>>
> >>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]
> >>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of
> >> community
> >>>>>> members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with
> >> human
> >>>>>> events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays,
> >> wedding,
> >>>> spam
> >>>>>> filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I
> >>>> mentioned)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the
> >> shorter
> >>>>>> period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> >>>>>> Robot could wait, I hope:)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alexey,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious,
> >> why do
> >>>>>>> you think that a period before actions are taken should be so
> >> long
> >>>>>>> (3-6 months)?.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic
> >> "cleaning",
> >>>> we
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> provide next options
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving
> >> comments
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>   useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> >>>>>>>>   - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> >>>>>> clarification
> >>>>>>>>   of our goals
> >>>>>>>>   - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each
> >> PR's
> >>>>>> author
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each
> >> module
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> area
> >>>>>>>> with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community
> >> and
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested
> >> by
> >>>>>> myself
> >>>>>>>> above
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I hope that we will be careful with our community
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH &
> >>>> Apache
> >>>>>>>>> accounts.
> >>>>>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Do someone have permission to close my(or any other
> >>>> contributor) PR
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> apache/ignite?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>> NIkolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean technical ability?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ivan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have the ability to close PRs from other
> >>>> contributors?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to resume a discussion about PRs
> >> cleanup.
> >>>>>>>>> Additionally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations
> >> are
> >>>>>> slowed
> >>>>>>> down
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an
> >>>> opinion
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise
> >>>> criteria
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion
> >> as
> >>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ivan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> >>>>>> reasons:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> >>>>>>> bureaucracy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From my experience - not required bureaucracy is
> >> a
> >>>> BAD
> >>>>>>> thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe there are many patterns of dealing with
> >>>> *YOUR
> >>>>>>> OWN*
> >>>>>>>>> PRs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to
> >>>> master.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whats wrong with it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem we trying to solve?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I see.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well)
> >>>> consumes
> >>>>>>> huge
> >>>>>>>>>> amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect
> >>>> operations
> >>>>>>> (every
> >>>>>>>>>> minute, BTW).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> >>>>>> bureaucracy,
> >>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>> part of the project development workflow in area of
> >> cleaning
> >>>> up and
> >>>>>>>>> keeping
> >>>>>>>>>> everything fresh and actual.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to
> >>>> review
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> rest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of ordering something to one way or
> >> another,
> >>>>>> let's
> >>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>> real problem:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - help the community doing PR review.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - fixing failing tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - introducing new code inspections to make
> >> our
> >>>> code
> >>>>>>> base
> >>>>>>>>>> clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - making Ignite improvements
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other
> >>>> Apache
> >>>>>>>>> projects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn
> >> пишет:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Dmitriy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we
> >>>> should
> >>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>>> them in order.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets,
> >>>> this can
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> done with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple script.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open
> >> PRs my
> >>>>>> first
> >>>>>>>>>> thought was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that something was wrong with a review
> >> process.
> >>>> In my
> >>>>>>> mind
> >>>>>>>>>> in not very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big project open PR list can reflect very
> >> well
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> real
> >>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress. For bigger projects things become
> >> more
> >>>>>>>>> complicated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> >>>>>>> Immediately I
> >>>>>>>>>> think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is fully safe to close all PRs that were
> >> not
> >>>>>> touched
> >>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>> than a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main concern is related to chances that
> >>>>>> newcomer
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>> have to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review support from the community.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, a lot of people doing their best
> >> to
> >>>>>>> provide a
> >>>>>>>>>> feedback to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newcomers, and count of issues still in PA
> >>>> state
> >>>>>> goes
> >>>>>>>>> down
> >>>>>>>>>> (84 is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively small count of issues in PA
> >> state).
> >>>> But
> >>>>>>> 1428
> >>>>>>>>>> PRs may imply we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't review here, as we have tons of
> >>>> incomplete
> >>>>>> PRs.
> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, most of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these PRs were merged (but not using
> >>>>>>>>>> ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually, without reference to PRs).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another benefit of revising this list, if
> >>>> there are
> >>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>> changes which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were not accomplished with a proper ticket
> >>>> with PA
> >>>>>>>>> status,
> >>>>>>>>>> we will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identify
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a number of additional contributions to be
> >>>> applied
> >>>>>>> to the
> >>>>>>>>>> codebase.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay
> >> Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Dmitriy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with opened PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How project will benefit from closed PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same proposal is related to IEP
> >>>> statuses.
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> were involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEP, please validate its status
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. We should maintain IEP description
> >> up to
> >>>>>> date.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes
> >> became
> >>>>>>> concerned
> >>>>>>>>>> about many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open PRs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot
> >> also
> >>>>>>> performs
> >>>>>>>>>> runs checks with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are
> >>>> waiting
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> review.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please verify the list of
> >> your
> >>>> PRs in
> >>>>>>>>> Apache
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulls  and close
> >> every
> >>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> needed/already merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same proposal is related to IEP
> >>>> statuses.
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> were involved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEP, please validate its status here
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a correct state for your IEP, as
> >> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you have any questions, please
> >> don't
> >>>>>>> hesitate
> >>>>>>>>>> to ask here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in advance!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>
>
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Anton,

Teamcity Bot shows JIRA status in addition to a link to PR, so once PR
count is 100 instead of 1200 we easily can clean up it from time to time.
Just the same way with cleaning up git branches in the Apache repository.

I do this cleaning time to time and its not a problem. Just like I've
closed https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6575 now. The issue now is to
clean the main part of PRs opened during years in ASF.

Sincerely

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 15:48, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> Peter,
>
> Not sure I've got how you're going to keep this ok in future.
> This crusade is useful only in case you have the plan.
>
> >> And closing PRs after merge or some decent waiting period of inactivity
> seems to be at least sign of respect to each other of our community.
> We have to find an easy (automated) way instead of respectful :)
> For example, PRs should be automatically closed once issue resolved.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:42 PM Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Anton,
> >
> >
> > Maintaining order always worth it.
> > If we did not made this mess initially, no crusade would be required now.
> > And closing PRs after merge or some decent waiting period of inactivity
> > seems to be at least sign of respect to each other of our community.
> >
> > Anyway, looks like that this task can be done in half-lazy pace without
> > much of the disturbance to anyone.
> >
> >
> > > On 25 Jul 2019, at 13:44, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Is it possible just to ignore obsolete PRs somehow?
> > > Not sure this crusade worth it.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:18 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maxim,
> > >>
> > >> Quite a nice idea. Could we go even further? Add a comment to each 1-2
> > >> year old PR asking if the author could close it (most likely with help
> > >> of some automation). As I know GitHub sends emails with PR comments to
> > >> authors.
> > >>
> > >> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:05, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Folks, please close not needed PRs.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't have contact with Pyatkov & dkarachentsev. Folks, please step
> > in.
> > >>> Also, feel free to reopen PRs if you still want change to be merged.
> > >>>
> > >>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:39, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Folks,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can we contact with some members manually and ask them to close
> unused
> > >>>> PRs? Most of the users are active community members, so I think they
> > >>>> will respond quite fast.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've briefly checked GitHub:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> dkarachentsev - 62 opened PRs
> > >>>> ilantukh - 58 opened PRs
> > >>>> dgovorukhin - 44 opened PRs
> > >>>> mcherkasov - 23 opened PRs
> > >>>> ascherbakoff  - 22 opened PRs
> > >>>> vldpyatkov - 21 opened PRs
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 12:28, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Alexey,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> second need it to check all open PRs from community members for
> > >> fixes,
> > >>>>> which could be merged to Ignite codebase.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Which is why I'm not so sure that we should automatically close. I
> > >> ask
> > >>>>> everyone to close their PRs, and I manually double-check PRs
> remained
> > >>>>> opened.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The third need is to automatically tests all opened PRs and provide
> > >> visas
> > >>>>> to every PR we have. In case we have PRs with 0 blockers we should
> > >> take
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> into review process. No all newcomers aware of TC Bot, so I would
> > >> like to
> > >>>>> automate this process as much as possible.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sincerely,
> > >>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 12:22, Alexey Zinoviev <
> [hidden email]
> > >>> :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The long period totally reduces the discontent and outrage of
> > >> community
> > >>>>>> members (if you reduce to 2-6 weeks it could be intersected with
> > >> human
> > >>>>>> events of most part of contributors like vacation, birthdays,
> > >> wedding,
> > >>>> spam
> > >>>>>> filters and etc.), believe me (I have the same experience as I
> > >>>> mentioned)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> From the other hand, what the real reason to reduce it to the
> > >> shorter
> > >>>>>> period? Bot needs? Robot needs?
> > >>>>>> Robot could wait, I hope:)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 14:08, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Alexey,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yep, I imagined a similar procedure in my mind. Just curious,
> > >> why do
> > >>>>>>> you think that a period before actions are taken should be so
> > >> long
> > >>>>>>> (3-6 months)?.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:55, Alexey Zinoviev <
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Dear Igniters, I have one suggestion
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> If a most of commiters will support idea of automatic
> > >> "cleaning",
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> provide next options
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>   - declare a long period for putting labels or leaving
> > >> comments
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>   useful PRs from their authors (about 3-6 months)
> > >>>>>>>>   - generate notifications for all authors of all PRs with
> > >>>>>> clarification
> > >>>>>>>>   of our goals
> > >>>>>>>>   - every month reminder in dev-list and via e-mail to each
> > >> PR's
> > >>>>>> author
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The best way, of course, the closing by our hands in each
> > >> module
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>> area
> > >>>>>>>> with tags "obsolete" or something else.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> P.S. I was in the same situation in Open Street Map community
> > >> and
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> principles for automated cleaning were the same like suggested
> > >> by
> > >>>>>> myself
> > >>>>>>>> above
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I hope that we will be careful with our community
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 13:23, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay, committer could after setting up a link between GH &
> > >>>> Apache
> > >>>>>>>>> accounts.
> > >>>>>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 11:17, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Do someone have permission to close my(or any other
> > >>>> contributor) PR
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> apache/ignite?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 11:05 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> NIkolay,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean technical ability?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 10:33, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ivan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have the ability to close PRs from other
> > >>>> contributors?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> В Чт, 25/07/2019 в 09:12 +0300, Павлухин Иван пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to resume a discussion about PRs
> > >> cleanup.
> > >>>>>>>>> Additionally
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to concerns provided earlier some TC Bot operations
> > >> are
> > >>>>>> slowed
> > >>>>>>> down
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> due to a huge amount of open PRs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As time has passed, I ask you all again to share an
> > >>>> opinion
> > >>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> centralized cleanup of obsolete PRs. Also, a precise
> > >>>> criteria
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider PR as obsolete is a subject for dicsussion
> > >> as
> > >>>> well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 11:55, Petr Ivanov <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ivan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I keep my PR's clear.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I don't have dozens of opened PR.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I don't support Dmitriy proposal for several
> > >>>>>> reasons:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We introduce some new, not required, level of
> > >>>>>>> bureaucracy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From my experience - not required bureaucracy is
> > >> a
> > >>>> BAD
> > >>>>>>> thing.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We spread our work pattern to whole community.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe there are many patterns of dealing with
> > >>>> *YOUR
> > >>>>>>> OWN*
> > >>>>>>>>> PRs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of them can lead to dozens of opened PRs to
> > >>>> master.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whats wrong with it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What problem we trying to solve?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I see.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lots of opened PRs (and obsolete branches as well)
> > >>>> consumes
> > >>>>>>> huge
> > >>>>>>>>>> amount of data and time when TC performs changes detect
> > >>>> operations
> > >>>>>>> (every
> > >>>>>>>>>> minute, BTW).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, IMO, ORDER is not an unnecessary level of
> > >>>>>> bureaucracy,
> > >>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>>> part of the project development workflow in area of
> > >> cleaning
> > >>>> up and
> > >>>>>>>>> keeping
> > >>>>>>>>>> everything fresh and actual.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Closing abanodned PRs doesn't force anybody to
> > >>>> review
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> rest.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of ordering something to one way or
> > >> another,
> > >>>>>> let's
> > >>>>>>>>> solve
> > >>>>>>>>>> real problem:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - help the community doing PR review.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - fixing failing tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - introducing new code inspections to make
> > >> our
> > >>>> code
> > >>>>>>> base
> > >>>>>>>>>> clear.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - making Ignite improvements
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. I don't see how our numbers differs from other
> > >>>> Apache
> > >>>>>>>>> projects
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Kafka - 533 PR opened.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Spark - 484 PR opened.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Flink - 430 PR opened.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> В Вт, 11/12/2018 в 09:24 +0300, Pavel Tupitsyn
> > >> пишет:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Dmitriy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We use GitHub PRs in our workflow, therefore we
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>>>> keep
> > >>>>>>>>>> them in order.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can close PRs that refer to closed tickets,
> > >>>> this can
> > >>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>> done with a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple script.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:15 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must say that when I first saw 1K+ open
> > >> PRs my
> > >>>>>> first
> > >>>>>>>>>> thought was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that something was wrong with a review
> > >> process.
> > >>>> In my
> > >>>>>>> mind
> > >>>>>>>>>> in not very
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big project open PR list can reflect very
> > >> well
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> real
> > >>>>>>>>> work
> > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress. For bigger projects things become
> > >> more
> > >>>>>>>>> complicated.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have some cleanup automation in mind?
> > >>>>>>> Immediately I
> > >>>>>>>>>> think that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is fully safe to close all PRs that were
> > >> not
> > >>>>>> touched
> > >>>>>>>>> more
> > >>>>>>>>>> than a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:01, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main concern is related to chances that
> > >>>>>> newcomer
> > >>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>> have to obtain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review support from the community.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, a lot of people doing their best
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>> provide a
> > >>>>>>>>>> feedback to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newcomers, and count of issues still in PA
> > >>>> state
> > >>>>>> goes
> > >>>>>>>>> down
> > >>>>>>>>>> (84 is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively small count of issues in PA
> > >> state).
> > >>>> But
> > >>>>>>> 1428
> > >>>>>>>>>> PRs may imply we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't review here, as we have tons of
> > >>>> incomplete
> > >>>>>> PRs.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, most of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these PRs were merged (but not using
> > >>>>>>>>>> ./apply-pull-request.sh script, but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually, without reference to PRs).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another benefit of revising this list, if
> > >>>> there are
> > >>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>> changes which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were not accomplished with a proper ticket
> > >>>> with PA
> > >>>>>>>>> status,
> > >>>>>>>>>> we will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identify
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a number of additional contributions to be
> > >>>> applied
> > >>>>>>> to the
> > >>>>>>>>>> codebase.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 19:53, Nikolay
> > >> Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Dmitriy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What, exactly concerns newcomers?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with opened PR?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How project will benefit from closed PR?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same proposal is related to IEP
> > >>>> statuses.
> > >>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>> were involved
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEP, please validate its status
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. We should maintain IEP description
> > >> up to
> > >>>>>> date.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 10 дек. 2018 г., 19:15 Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newcomers to Apache Ignite sometimes
> > >> became
> > >>>>>>> concerned
> > >>>>>>>>>> about many
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open PRs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the project. Apache Ignite TC Bot
> > >> also
> > >>>>>>> performs
> > >>>>>>>>>> runs checks with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open. Apache Ignite pulls list
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pulls
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1442 PRs open while only 84 issues are
> > >>>> waiting
> > >>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>> review.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please verify the list of
> > >> your
> > >>>> PRs in
> > >>>>>>>>> Apache
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulls  and close
> > >> every
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> needed/already merged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same proposal is related to IEP
> > >>>> statuses.
> > >>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>> were involved
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IEP, please validate its status here
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Active+Proposals
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a correct state for your IEP, as
> > >> well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you have any questions, please
> > >> don't
> > >>>>>>> hesitate
> > >>>>>>>>>> to ask here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in advance!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>
> >
> >
>