Clean up of our PRs and IEPs before 2019

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

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
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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
> >
>

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

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

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

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
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Ivan,

Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary rights to close PRs. Only PR
author can close.

I can only imagine the following way: Produce fake commit(s) with message
Fixes #NNNN. But this may be acceptable if PR author is not responding.

Simple expiration policy may have its own issues. There can be
- an enthusiast who didn't provide correctly set up ticket
- But prepared just PR with a good addition to the product.

It is not so correct to accept such contribution (HTC requires JIRA), but
anyway, having PR open we can ask him or her to set up a ticket.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 09:24, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:

> 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
> >
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

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?

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
> >

[Dmitry Pavlov]

My point is - close your outdated PRs/if you don't need. It is not a
pattern nor enforcement nor bureaucracy.

You're absolutely free to use PRs in any way you like to (e.g. experiments
with TC runs).

Now count of PRs shocks newcomers.

вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:

> 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?
>
> 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
> > >
>

[Pavel Kovalenko]

+1

When I just joined the project I was really confused with the huge number
of opened PRs with poor description and cryptic reason.
This can give to newcomers a weird representation of what is
actually happening in the project.
Don't be lazy, just spend 5-10 minutes of free time and clean up after you.

вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:16, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:

> My point is - close your outdated PRs/if you don't need. It is not a
> pattern nor enforcement nor bureaucracy.
>
> You're absolutely free to use PRs in any way you like to (e.g. experiments
> with TC runs).
>
> Now count of PRs shocks newcomers.
>
> вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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?
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> >
>

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Dmitiy,

I see the point. And also I see that not everyone supports a suggested
cleanup. (I personally like the idea very much). But all in all I
think that everyone is free to close his own PRs if he would like to.
As already have done I, Pavel and others.

Nikolay,

> 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> What problem we trying to solve?

From my point of view the main point is visibility. And in my previous
experience going through open PRs was very good matter of
understanding what is REALLY happening in the project. With 1K+ open
PRs I doubt that it is feasible.

Also, in Cassandra they have about 100 open PRs. So, it looks like
that different communities have different approaches. And we can
develop our own.
вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 13:02, Pavel Kovalenko <[hidden email]>:

>
> +1
>
> When I just joined the project I was really confused with the huge number
> of opened PRs with poor description and cryptic reason.
> This can give to newcomers a weird representation of what is
> actually happening in the project.
> Don't be lazy, just spend 5-10 minutes of free time and clean up after you.
>
> вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:16, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > My point is - close your outdated PRs/if you don't need. It is not a
> > pattern nor enforcement nor bureaucracy.
> >
> > You're absolutely free to use PRs in any way you like to (e.g. experiments
> > with TC runs).
> >
> > Now count of PRs shocks newcomers.
> >
> > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > 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

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Dmitriy, admin rights allow closing any PRs, I wonder who is admin for
Ignite GitHub mirror.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:29 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dmitiy,
>
> I see the point. And also I see that not everyone supports a suggested
> cleanup. (I personally like the idea very much). But all in all I
> think that everyone is free to close his own PRs if he would like to.
> As already have done I, Pavel and others.
>
> Nikolay,
>
> > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > What problem we trying to solve?
>
> From my point of view the main point is visibility. And in my previous
> experience going through open PRs was very good matter of
> understanding what is REALLY happening in the project. With 1K+ open
> PRs I doubt that it is feasible.
>
> Also, in Cassandra they have about 100 open PRs. So, it looks like
> that different communities have different approaches. And we can
> develop our own.
> вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 13:02, Pavel Kovalenko <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > When I just joined the project I was really confused with the huge number
> > of opened PRs with poor description and cryptic reason.
> > This can give to newcomers a weird representation of what is
> > actually happening in the project.
> > Don't be lazy, just spend 5-10 minutes of free time and clean up after
> you.
> >
> > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:16, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > My point is - close your outdated PRs/if you don't need. It is not a
> > > pattern nor enforcement nor bureaucracy.
> > >
> > > You're absolutely free to use PRs in any way you like to (e.g.
> experiments
> > > with TC runs).
> > >
> > > Now count of PRs shocks newcomers.
> > >
> > > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > 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
>

[Anton Vinogradov-2]

Infra should be the owner.

BTW, How about to specify strict PR flow and get community approval before
starting such batch closes?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dmitriy, admin rights allow closing any PRs, I wonder who is admin for
> Ignite GitHub mirror.
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:29 PM Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dmitiy,
> >
> > I see the point. And also I see that not everyone supports a suggested
> > cleanup. (I personally like the idea very much). But all in all I
> > think that everyone is free to close his own PRs if he would like to.
> > As already have done I, Pavel and others.
> >
> > Nikolay,
> >
> > > 3. I dont' see any issues with many opened PRs.
> > > What problem we trying to solve?
> >
> > From my point of view the main point is visibility. And in my previous
> > experience going through open PRs was very good matter of
> > understanding what is REALLY happening in the project. With 1K+ open
> > PRs I doubt that it is feasible.
> >
> > Also, in Cassandra they have about 100 open PRs. So, it looks like
> > that different communities have different approaches. And we can
> > develop our own.
> > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 13:02, Pavel Kovalenko <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > When I just joined the project I was really confused with the huge
> number
> > > of opened PRs with poor description and cryptic reason.
> > > This can give to newcomers a weird representation of what is
> > > actually happening in the project.
> > > Don't be lazy, just spend 5-10 minutes of free time and clean up after
> > you.
> > >
> > > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:16, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > My point is - close your outdated PRs/if you don't need. It is not a
> > > > pattern nor enforcement nor bureaucracy.
> > > >
> > > > You're absolutely free to use PRs in any way you like to (e.g.
> > experiments
> > > > with TC runs).
> > > >
> > > > Now count of PRs shocks newcomers.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:10, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> >
>

[vveider]

> 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
>>>

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

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

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

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
> > > > >
>
>

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

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

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

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
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Ivan,

Thank you for bumping this topic.

I consider PRs for resolved or closed tickets are obsolete and I close it
from time to time.

TC Bot shows which PRs related to closed and resolved, so it is possible to
enter your GitHub ID at PRs page and see which PRs are not needed.

Also, committers could close PRs opened by other contributors.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

чт, 25 июл. 2019 г. в 09:12, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>:

> 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]

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
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Alexey Zinoviev]

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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>