Hi Jean-Baptiste, That sounds great! Let me start with 3 month + 1 month, and we can later refine as needed.
Thanks for the suggestions, Warm Regards, Arnav On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 11:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
