Issue / Pulls timers

I would like to propose adding timers to the pulls / issues:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/523

"From time to time a pull request will become outdated. If this occurs, and the pull is no longer automatically mergeable; it will be closed after 15 days. This can be avoided by rebasing the commit. Pull requests closed in this manner will have their corresponding issue labeled stagnant.

Non-bug issues with no commits will be closed after 15 days from their last activity. Issues closed in this manner will be labeled stale.

Requests to reopen closed pull requests and/or issues can be submitted to QA@BitcoinTesting•org. "

This will help cut down on the abandoned / stagnant pulls and issues. It will also focus attention on priority items, and phase out unwanted changes.

Sidenote: QA@BitcoinTesting•org is working, unlike QA@Bitcoin•org

-Alex

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Alex Waters <ampedal@gmail•com> wrote:

> I would like to propose adding timers to the pulls / issues:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/523
>
> "From time to time a pull request will become outdated. If this occurs, and
> the pull is no longer automatically mergeable; it will be closed after 15
> days. This can be avoided by rebasing the commit. Pull requests closed in this
> manner will have their corresponding issue labeled stagnant.
>
> Non-bug issues with no commits will be closed after 15 days from their
> last activity.
> Issues closed in this manner will be labeled stale.
>
> Requests to reopen closed pull requests and/or issues can be submitted to
> QA@BitcoinTesting•org. "

We need to avoid a user/contributor experience of: "my pull request was abruptly closed with no warning"

Contributors might not track the state of the tree on a day-to-day basis. Thus, following the example of bugzilla.redhat.com and many other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an automated warning email -- usually by adding a comment to the bug report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated reports) exists, and how to avoid automated report closure.

In our case, this means a "we will close pull req, unless you update this commit in 15 days" comment should be added to the pull req. The comment should describe in broad terms, with links, how to rebase a commit, what standard expectations are, etc.

Closing with no warning should be avoided.

> We need to avoid a user/contributor experience of:  "my pull request
> was abruptly closed with no warning"

I agree, I definitely want to go about this in a non-jerk way. I would be pissed if I spent hours coding something, and it was put on the back burner and eventually closed (especially without notice). The wording and process could use refinement.

> Contributors might not track the state of the tree on a day-to-day
> basis.  Thus, following the example of bugzilla.redhat.com and many
> other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an
> automated warning email -- usually by adding a comment to the bug
> report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated
> reports) exists, and how to avoid automated report closure.

I can definitely do this, and give a wordy notice before I start the timer. I will write up a message that links to a rebase walkthrough (any suggestions? I think Gavin has one somewhere...), I would like it to be more detailed than GitHub's walk-through.

My main reason for pushing this is that it will help clear out some of the older pulls/issues that exist right now. I'm hoping that in the future, the QA process will be good enough that pulls/issues won't fall behind from lack of testing - and the timers will be used very sparingly. It should only be in place to sort out the pulls/issues that the majority doesn't want included in the client.