Hi I agree with Larry, 5/6 months look super "long" to me.
What we do in some Apache projects (Iceberg, Polaris, ...) is a "warn comment"/stale status after 30 days of inactivity (to inform contributor), and then we close the PR 5 days later. I think it's fair to notify the contributor after 3 months of inactivity, and close one month later. Regards JB On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 4:33 PM larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Arnav - > > Thanks for bringing this up. I was considering the same and agree. > > I don't think we need such a long period of inactivity or a warning though. > > Let's just close them with a respectful message that they can reopen if > they plan to move it forward. > > Thoughts? > > --larry > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 7:26 AM Arnav Balyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi team, > > > > I noticed that we have several open PRs from a few years ago that have > not > > seen activity in a long time. It can make it harder to tell which PRs are > > currently active and ready for review, and may add maintenance overhead. > > > > Would it make sense to introduce a stale PR policy? For example, marking > a > > PR as inactive after 6 months of no activity, with 1 warning at 5 months > to > > inform the author that it would be auto closed if there is no response. > > > > Contributors could always reopen their PR if they plan to continue the > > work. This could make the project more clear and friendly for newcomers > and > > reduce maintenance overhead for maintainers. > > > > Would love to know what you think. > > > > Regards, > > Arnav > > >
