Mailing-List: contact dev-help@arrow.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@arrow.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN6ttnu4hxGUnzESDA9fqGTx1cZMj6nA0+gMX=1ViwQAizS1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHNq98bYGW7heAA_bVwLjdHexFQHQZ4BpY_ZnVRcrqovE8ung@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D5F7E3237B3ED47B84CF187BB17B6661493B7AE@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CADHNq9_xp4_KxbDbvUNQHKU4PXxrMJQTb7UKCwSb_4iAJKe==w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADY20s5DE+_qvJCxbg4ydir4PjCtMmukDbQo2yAf30EbqEwYQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMpYv7D2S5-wvTxZKik=5TWQ=OGKPDmJhEYSR4mzKQfpjZK5fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADHNq99monz9EvDDzp1J+cGf8Sm0hOD09=PesZfbX1+_4bnBsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADHNq9-3Qwf6_4MRXgJ2iTR8jJFN=_ug0fd8Gz+cADesppaSOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwFCa0LckVSSjXigX5UhhgTZTFZkii5+dYFTpK2GVpW5sGkhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADHNq9_0_tHXzPBWQDc-M-jSfiAKnBx-89aA+dANQW4bX8B-Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D868F3E-D6ED-4E86-AFEE-69433B218E12@gmail.com> <CADY20s4K9rhz5Kz2uiHMGt8jabiNRfea=hGcEPBRAH3kzg=DqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADHNq9_cA7j5eyR=VSPPRASUJfRR1L7n842qYEe6wCLM+nHxow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADY20s7RkFJEy3sf-AJHm1Mx4jT3Yp0NJeDi42K-+8663J=-Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKa9qDkqYG-Y0jA2seHTUkTdcNJsBfGeBDhyhvV=cZ1CJ9iaeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPUwMAGLcErCpo2-2M-NX=zLn5LaMkFOVhcvUEHxi2EobUiDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F4947E2F4CF3D9C8.DC5D047D-5DB4-44B2-8AF5-62545042BB36@mail.outlook.com>
 <CAK7Z5T9pbvZNWA2G5z4BaCMWsV0v5Gi-t9DPY6vF+XB+zLb8Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPUwMBzR0vgb0igLGHtQk5oEQuTid0vdVPc98ms_14_e7iqTA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN6ttnu4hxGUnzESDA9fqGTx1cZMj6nA0+gMX=1ViwQAizS1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hanifi GUNES <hanifigunes@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:55:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHcC4n-M+tf2+kHDhqQ_CueD+d9-DB3xFjsnKqsfrZXuanRJ2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Cc: emkornfield@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5069a00cf99fc05338a57be
archived-at: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:56:02 -0000

--bcaec5069a00cf99fc05338a57be
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

--bcaec5069a00cf99fc05338a57be--