open-source project maintainers

Abstract: Practitioners use reinforcement learning methods for language models through training frameworks, so a method that a framework includes is one configuration change away for its users. We measure how often this happens. We trace seven open-source frameworks for RL post-training through their commit histories and link them to 6,939 screened arXiv papers from January 2025 to June 2026. Of 1,598 papers that propose a general RL training method, 37 reached at least one framework. Across five quarterly cohorts of papers, the number included within 180 days stayed between 5 and 7 while the cohorts grew from 72 to 386 papers. Compared with papers from the same quarters, included papers more often trained policies of 30B parameters or more, at 41 against 10 percent, and more often changed a coefficient, clip, mask or weight in the existing loss, at 29 against 9 percent. Both gaps hold without papers from the companies that maintain the frameworks, while code release was equally common in both groups. The frameworks' issues and pull requests show that few methods are turned away in public. More than nine in ten of the general methods no framework included have no thread there that cites or names them, and many proposals that do appear stay open without a reply. Two further records, the frameworks' issues and the technical reports of 13 large open-weight models, show that users rarely report training failures in public and that the reports state 8 of the 13 widely included methods. We release the data as a tracker that links training failures to framework implementations and lists each framework's contribution rules and earlier proposals.

Abstract: Pull requests (PRs) underpin pull-based software development by enabling distributed code review and collaborative contribution in open-source projects. Yet many become inactive before integration and are eventually abandoned or closed, wasting contributor and maintainer effort. Although prior work has examined PR abandonment and review delays, less is known about the contribution types, discussion-level barriers, and post-stalling collaboration patterns associated with inactivity. We investigate which PR types most often stall, why inactivity occurs from authors' and reviewers' perspectives, and how stalling relates to later contributor and reviewer engagement. We analyzed 14,234 stalled PRs and 164,562 review comments from 19 popular GitHub repositories using stale-bot workflows. An LLM-based voting classifier categorized PRs by contribution type, while quantitative analysis was combined with qualitative coding of general and inline review discussions. Feature-enhancement and issue-fixing PRs formed the largest share, together exceeding 77% of classified stalled PRs. General comments linked stalling mainly to communication and coordination breakdowns, including missing interaction, delayed feedback, and unclear follow-up. Inline comments showed that inactivity does not always reflect disengagement: many PRs were blocked by technical or dependency issues, including failing checks, configuration problems, compatibility concerns, and environment mismatches. Only 39.56% of contributors later submitted another PR, and reviewer re-engagement with the same contributors was approximately 21%. PR inactivity is a socio-technical coordination problem involving communication, technical readiness, review ownership, and automation practices. We recommend type-aware triage, clearer review feedback, explicit ownership of next actions, CI blocker management, and cause-aware stale-bot interventions.