Mailing-List: contact reviews-help@aurora.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: reviews@aurora.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============6325031597645703031=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Review Request 20407: AURORA-323:Add ability to merge in github
 pull
 requests similar to rbt
From: "Jake Farrell" <jfarrell@apache.org>
To: "Bill Farner" <wfarner@apache.org>, "Kevin Sweeney" <kevints@apache.org>
Cc: "Aurora" <reviews@aurora.incubator.apache.org>,
 "Jake Farrell" <jfarrell@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:32:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20140625163243.22596.5685@reviews.apache.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Sender: "Jake Farrell" <noreply@reviews.apache.org>
References: <20140425040634.21392.72269@reviews.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140425040634.21392.72269@reviews.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Jake Farrell" <jfarrell@apache.org>

--===============6325031597645703031==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> On April 25, 2014, 4:06 a.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> > I have some reservations with this, but they're not well-formed.  I like the idea of giving committers a chance to chime in on reviews, and we seem to be building process around reviewboard for that.  We also have plans to build test automation around reviewboard.  This seems to turn github into a "back door" of sorts for changes to not receive the same level of scrutiny.  What are your thoughts?
> 
> Jake Farrell wrote:
>     Github makes it easier for some to contribute patches, but we should require the same criteria as we do with reviewboard (Jira ticket, tests performed, etc). This tooling is just to make it easier for us to manage those contributions, wish we could disable Github pull requests on the mirrors, but that is not an available option
> 
> Bill Farner wrote:
>     I've obviously been delinquent here.  My apologies.
>     
>     Overall -1 on this feature.
>     
>     I'm not fond of the idea of pulling diffs from different places.  The biggest issue for me is that we lose a canonical location for code reviews.  A big downside is that we would no longer have a cohesive history of the code (i consider code reviews a non-trivial part of the history of project).  It also complicates future automation like code review validation on commits, which i am very interested in doing to keep our commit history clean and enforce agreed-upon best practices.

I'm fine not including this as long as we have a documented process and stick to it 


- Jake


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20407/#review41435
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 17, 2014, 4 a.m., Jake Farrell wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20407/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 17, 2014, 4 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Kevin Sweeney and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-323
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-323
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> AURORA-323:Add ability to merge in github pull requests similar to rbt
> 
> Created a new extension for rbt which adds a new github subcommand to preview and
> merge/commit available pull requests. Adds text to the commit message
> so when github mirrors the given commit the pull request will automatically
> be closed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   .reviewboardrc a66e6fd0da9102f760381401b56b41b29c8d6f4d 
>   rbt b03c87f9df129a03cced6ec088aa5ed3e16edfe0 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20407/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Preview a pull request patch
> ./rbt github -p 7
> 
> Commit a pull request
> ./rbt github -c 7
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jake Farrell
> 
>


--===============6325031597645703031==--