Re: [RFC] GitHub Pull Requests Triage Team

On Nov 1, 2014, at 08:28, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 November 2014 11:53:11 GMT, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Oct 31, 2014 4:57 AM, "John Bafford" <jbafford@zort.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to propose the creation of a team to triage the pull >> requests on GitHub, to help ensure that the pull requests are handled >> in a >> timely manner. I am also volunteering to lead such a team, should the >> RFC >> be approved. >>> >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/github-pr >>> >>> PHP’s GitHub repository has over 180 open pull requests. Many of >> these >> are bug fixes or new tests that should be incorporated into PHP, but >> have >> not been because the PRs aren’t being regularly monitored. As a result, >> the >> large number of open pull requests may also be discouraging >> contributions, >> as potential contributors may see that pull requests are not being >> acted on >> and decline to submit changes. >> >> As much as I like the idea I never understood why we do not have them >> here. >> >> Given that many PRs have discussions, it should show up on internals. >> >> PS: yes we have a PR list. Which did not work as expected. PRs and >> discussions in them should not be considered as noises to the internals >> list > > It depends on the type of discussion - PR discussions can be an opportunity for code review and > discussing the minutiae of the implementation, which don't really warrant forwarding to a wider > audience. If the discussion becomes about the merit or impact of the change itself, then a > discussion on Internals might make sense. The same is true of bug discussions; having every comment > on every bug flood the list wouldn't make sense, but some should probably be forwarded here to > get a wider audience. > > I don't know what the volume in this case would be, though. If there were several posts > popping up on Internals every day about someone misplacing a curly brace, I would definitely think > it was noise; if it were a few threads a week, mostly discussing the actual substance of changes, > I'd be fine with it. I would expect that, at the least, there would be an uptick in discussion just as a result of weekly PR summary making the pending PRs more visible. My guess is that there might be a lot of discussion and/or noise initially as we get the current backlog (185 PRs currently open) whittled down to something more manageable, so it might take a few months after the RFC is adopted for the true nature of the volume increase (if any) to become apparent. -John