Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF689D476 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 65363 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2013 09:43:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 65194 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2013 09:43:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 65174 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2013 09:43:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:43:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of srivatsav.prasanna@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.169] (HELO mail-ea0-f169.google.com) (209.85.215.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:43:39 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f169.google.com with SMTP id d13so923106eaa.28 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:43:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=AOyBr5sGd5hWH7Q9oWOZYBNMdxvTQcugOP6ELei1to4=; b=GS+750v8or9YPHhhOuGTkKypQPU+VbkfHmC5W+iCknyD7C87t26RwnlOpCQSkqaSMN /xGBjGT4SgEDX77KrZrnTcCgxpRKq5NknxcQYWvV5DWabIndm+hHiEZ3Nw442XE/ci3a OiBkmx8l0cpJ7xlPMfQrW56iUabTkahE+JcitTPbO4gZsESuzFclnkm612BB4xTiYydd G5Y5OtDhvSjVra+JPporISXHHyj/6oEQDQ+qWzU/F037Fk87+NcMLE+UItZRg3nBXkn1 wu3yR53u367mjA5/dVxsSlDm88YzQfn2bVBESwc/kI1+UsWQ5r1BY5g6gPVZcp0AKKyO 9BgA== X-Received: by 10.14.210.132 with SMTP id u4mr85241805eeo.19.1360834999436; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([49.205.151.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 46sm8267577eea.3.2013.02.14.01.43.16 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:43:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: prasanna Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:13:11 +0530 From: Prasanna Santhanam To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][INFRA] Setting up gerrit Message-ID: <20130214094311.GB4564@cloud-2.local> Mail-Followup-To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" References: <53628857-87F4-4CC1-9FF5-3C45C0882BCC@stratosec.co> <1360598677.2729.140661189880901.7AB46155@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20130212045013.GF68798@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Some folks on this list have actually gone through the rigor of the gerrit workflow on the OS lists [1] and can probably note the positive and negative experiences. One thing I've seen is that almost all reviews in OS come in with tests and without passing the devstack tests (also integrated in gerrit) the patch isn't even picked up by committers for code review. Personally I'm okay with either tool. IMO the real issue is in people reviewing a patch within time for a release. On the review I've cited we've got a lot of things to learn from - a) timely response from blueprint (FS) owners and/or asking for time for a thorough review b) sign-off from multiple committers c) incremental patch sets Probably many more in just that example. So if we think we can match up that kind of response time for patches hitting a our gerrit setup then +1 for gerrit. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/3343/ -- Prasanna., On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:06:00PM -0500, Leif Gruenwoldt wrote: > I recommend anyone for or against code review read this post by a > Mozilla dev written on 18 Jan 2013. > > "One of the discussions happening right now in the Mozilla Foundation > software team is whether mandatory code reviews are a good thing. > I?ve had versions of this conversation a number of times in the past > few months, and today I?m going to write my thoughts down so I can > point at them when it comes up in the future." > > http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569