arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hanifi GUNES <hanifigu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches
Date Mon, 23 May 2016 22:55:35 GMT
I worked with Gerrit and GH both. My personal preference would be in favor
of Gerrit because of its power user ready-ness and tight integration with
git + git cli. Afaics there are legitimate concerns around possible
trickiness of novice users' interaction with Gerrit. Not sure if this was
mentioned above but there seems a Gerrit + GH plugin that mirrors GH
pull-requests to Gerrit changes. Never used it but still this may be of
help.


1: https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/github/+/master/README.md

2016-05-13 8:47 GMT-07:00 Jason Altekruse <jason@dremio.com>:

> If everyone else would prefer Gerrit, I would be okay with using it
> exclusively to simplify things. It does have several nice features beyond
> reviewboard as it manages its own git repository, rather than just patch
> files.
>
> Jason Altekruse
> Software Engineer at Dremio
> Apache Drill Committer
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Apparently it is possible, but quite a lot of work:
> >
> > https://github.com/andygrunwald/gotrap
> >
> > The ideal thing, it would seem, would be to have the Gerrit code
> > reviews with automatic replication of updated patch sets to a pull
> > request (i.e. each new patch set force pushes the branch). I don't
> > think we're going to get that, so I'm not sure how to proceed. The
> > Kudu team uses Gerrit + Jenkins trigger (e.g. see it in action here
> > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2992/)
> >
> > - Wes
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Micah Kornfield <emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Does gerrit work well with TravisCI, or will we need to develop/setup
> > > another continuous integration solution?
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Robinson
> > > <danrobinson010@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Admittedly, coming from the complete opposite end of the commit-size
> > spectrum, the JIRA issue + GitHub pull request workflow already feels a
> > little frictional for simple bugfixes and additions, so I was wary of
> > Gerrit. But it actually looks pretty well-suited to small commits.
> > >> One advantage I'd see to different platforms, though, would be the
> > potential for JIRA integration. GitHub seems to have a more built-in
> > solution for this, if it's something you could foresee setting up. But
> > there seem to be ways to do it with Gerrit too.
> > >> Clearly having an option to use GitHub pull requests lowers the
> > barriers to entry for contributors, but I understand easy pull requests
> are
> > a double-edged sword for maintainers!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>     _____________________________
> > >> From: Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:46 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches
> > >> To:  <dev@arrow.apache.org>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'm also on board with this if it doesn't deter new contributors (it's
> > >> a bit of additional process over GitHub but overall not too hard to
> > >> learn).
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>> I dont know about the other pmc members and committers but I prefer
> > just
> > >>> making Gerrit the only way to submit patches rather than one of many.
> > It
> > >>> seems to work well for Asterix and Kudu.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message