Can anyone provide more context to the recent pull requests being closed by Andrew with the comment: “draft status, no updates in 30+ days”? I can understand the need to focus attention on PRs that have a higher likelihood of being merged by the core team of course. But I wonder if 30 days is sufficient time given how busy the core team is? And I wonder if the filter is too coarse, given there are some (in my opinion) interesting contributions being caught up in the close wave, like this one:
I thought I was, but reading more carefully reveals a completely different definition of “draft” than I expected. In other contexts, I use draft to indicate work in progress, requesting feedback, etc.
GitHub seems to use it for the author to say “please do not look at this.” Which is strange because then why is it even in the list of pull requests and why can people comment on it?
And on that pull request in particular, a member of the core team actually did give feedback, and the author then did substantial additional work. So possibly, the author’s use of draft status was a mistake. Or, the author didn’t know a 30 day timer would start when he switched to draft. Closing it on a 30 day timer still seems a bit abrupt to me.
I use “Draft” in pull requests to announce that I’m working on something so there’s no duplicate development effort.
And not working on it for months, while it’s not done, means I’ve lost interest or I’m working on something else and it’s better for someone else to put effort into the pull request.
As @squeek502 already noted anyone can work on it and recreate a new pull request.