[petsc-dev] Our pull request work flow is terrible and horrible

[Smith, Barry F.]

> On Jan 11, 2018, at 11:40 AM, Patrick Sanan <patrick.sanan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> One idea is to impose a stricter guideline that things on the bitbucket PR page are things that everyone is actively trying to merge. That way, maintainers can just look at the bottom of the list to see what's lagging, instead of having to to work up the list and try to remember which of the PRs are WIP or proposals or experiments or even abandoned ideas. 

  Very valid point. Perhaps we could have some way to convert the "proposals" to Issues so they are not lost but no longer clog the pull requests. Or the originator of the pull request (i.e. Jed) could kindly remove the pull request by converting it to some other archival form. Or at least label the pull request as Archival as opposed to active.

  Barry

> 
> This probably requires an itchier trigger finger on declining PRs which need substantial work.
> 
> A related point is that (as happened with the last PR I made), if a big edit is performed after the original PR is made or even approved, then it's not always clear "whose court" the PR is in. Maybe it's better to just make a new PR in this situation. I'm not sure if bitbucket allows you to decline your own PR (I fear not) - that would make this easier.
> 
> 2018-01-11 9:00 GMT-08:00 Smith, Barry F. <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>:
> 
>    what do people suggest to improve it.
> 
>     We can't have valuable pieces of code going stale in there for months.
> 
> 
>