docs: Feel relax in community and don't hurry

[Xuanwo]

No description provided.

[MouriNaruto]

If a PR remains inactive for 90 days, it will be closed.

Some PRs will depend on other PRs. It may wait for over 90 days without any replies.

It is important to note that closing a PR does not necessarily mean rejection.

Close PRs will make potential contributors unhappy. Maybe they won't create a new PR anymore.

Kenji Mouri

[suyanhanx]

Thanks.

[Xuanwo]

Some PRs will depend on other PRs. It may wait for over 90 days without any replies.

This rule has been removed.

[ClSlaid]

Some PRs will depend on other PRs. It may wait for over 90 days without any replies.

The issue or PR that blocking the progress should be addressed in the PR. We should avoid long unresponsed PRs, after all.

Close PRs will make potential contributors unhappy. Maybe they won't create a new PR anymore.

Indeed, but I think closing PRs with detailed, sincere explaination, is acceptable.

[Rustin170506]

[PsiACE]

lgtm

[MouriNaruto]

The issue or PR that blocking the progress should be addressed in the PR. We should avoid long unresponsed PRs, after all.

It seems you are not suffering from the long code review. (Many years ago, I contribute something to OpenSSL, they use one year and a half reviewed my PR. It makes me PTSD and I don't want to make PR to others anymore for several years, until LVGL's author give me some warm.)

Kenji Mouri

[Xuanwo]

It seems you are not suffering from the long code review. (Many years ago, I contribute something to OpenSSL, they use one year and a half reviewed my PR.

Thanks for sharing, but I think this case is a bit different from OpenDAL. OpenDAL's maintainer make sure that all PR get reviewed inside 24 hours. Our contributor never need to wait for more one day.

Anyway, we have changed the policy and will not close stale PR anymore.

Thanks again for the review.

[suyanhanx]

OpenDAL's maintainer make sure that all PR get reviewed inside 24 hours. Our contributor never need to wait for more one day.

Take it easy. No one can give a guarantee with a hundred percent sure. Life is filled with uncertainty.🤣

[ClSlaid]

Short version:

How about apply it to PRs that is inactive, and with no addition information about the inactivity? This should be acceptable.

---

Indeed, but I think closing PRs with detailed, sincere explaination, is acceptable.

I strongly support the idea of closing long no respond PRs because I've once created such one.

But I do agree closing not responded PRs is quite too strict, maybe inactive PR is better.

Those inactive PRs often comes with:

• stale or unrelated changes:
  for developers not familiar with git, some stale or unrelated changes may present in the PR, making review hard and could break the code base. This comes more severe when the code base is rapidly evolving with features and fixes. Some important fixes may be incorrectly shadowed by those stale and unrelated changes.
• Inconsistent changes:
  open source contributors are seldom working full time on PRs, this may lead to inconsistent changes and bugs.

OpenDAL is not very complex and most of the PR is quite straight forward. Our PR got quick review and response from warm-hearted developers.

How about apply it to PRs that is inactive, and with no addition information about the inactivity? This should be acceptable.

[Xuanwo]

Let's enjoy playing inside OpenDAL!