I noticed that there are quite a few PRs which are not mergeable right now because there is still additional work required to make them useful, but which also don’t have a person actively working on them. For example, this happens quite often for automatically generated package updates that break something but nobody is willing to fix that.
How should we proceed in that case? One idea I had was to create a new label (let’s say “2. status: needs work”) that can be assigned in that case, to know that this “open PR” is not really actively being worked on and there is nothing to do here for review. What do you think?
The only drawback I can think of this type of label is the following scenario:
A PR is opened.
Someone reviews the PR and adds the 2. status: needs work label.
The original author fixes up everything and wants to get a final review / merge.
The original reviewer goes on vacation and never looks at the PR again.
At this point, I’d be worried that no one is going to take the time to look at the PR again, because it still has the 2. status: needs work label. The original reviewer is gone, so no one will remove the label, but everyone else is scared away by the 2. status: needs work label.
Personally, if it is available, I’d like to use some sort of label like this for Haskell PRs. There are quite a few PRs where work needs to be done, but the original author isn’t responding.
I’d assume that this won’t happen often and if it does, the original author can still ping someone with the rights to remove the label.
I’m not sure. In my experience, it does sometimes happen.
You’re right that the original author can still ping someone, but in my experience, the original author doesn’t know who to ping.
Don’t get me wrong though, I don’t think this is a reason not to have some sort of 2. status: needs work label. There are currently a huge number of open PRs, and it is hard sorting through the ones that are actionable and the ones that are just waiting for something to happen.
I think having a 2. status: needs work label would be an improvement to the situation (even if there are times like above where it is detrimental).