cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajani Karuturi <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Introducing Gerrit for quality? was: [PROPOSAL] Using continuous integration to maintain our code quality...
Date Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:15:42 GMT
+1 for github pull requests. They are much better and cleaner than review board.


On 09-Jun-2014, at 9:17 pm, David Nalley <<>>

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Sheng Yang <<>>
Hi all,

Seems it's a good timing to bring back the discussion about the gerrit.

We want to do CI, and improve our code quality. One obvious way of doing
and reduce the workload of devs is introduce a tool to enforce the process.

I've checked out quite a few projects using gerrit, which would force you
to ask for review, and validation before the code can be committed to the
repo. Looks it's really a easier way for devs according what I've heard.

Even our competitor laid out a very detail workflow based on the use of
gerrit( ). I guess it can
make a good reference.

Well, gerrit has been brought up a few times before. And now the new
process we want to enforce just fits what gerrit(or other automation
review/test/commit software) is for.

Maybe it's the time for us to review the possibility of using a tool to
enforce our commits and improve our code quality(as well as transfer
knowledge) again?


ASF Infra has a very dour view on Gerrit. Don't read that as
impossible; there are many projects at the ASF who are interested in
That said; what about moving to using github pull requests instead of
RB, and from their, having the jenkins pull request builder
automatically process every pull request and list information.

Here's an example:
You'll see that every time the patch changes, the jenkins plugin
pulled the patch - ran tests against it and reported back.

That said; it almost seems like we have the cart before the horse; we
need to finish figuring out the CI Infrastructure first.


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