couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Board
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:25:39 GMT
Yes. It’s misleading for folks that stumble on it.

On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
> 
> On 19 February 2014 14:49, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de> wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <garren.smith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now
>>> and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should
>>> rather use github.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>> 
>> also +1 for github ... Humbedooh does magic things :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have
>>> an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and
>>> should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for
>>> requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
>>>>> 
>>>>> B.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <
>>> stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle
>>> reviews.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great
way
>>> to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A
>>> typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>>>>> <stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real  problem is the
culture.
>>>>>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code
is
>>>>>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That's why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before
the
>>>>>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>>>>>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the
integration
>>>>>>>>> continues to improve).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes
it a
>>>>>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every
participant
>>>>>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come
on)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> B.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>>>>>>> <stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to
use but you can
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> most of it on
>>>>>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others
can review and
>>>>>>>>> comment them.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board
set up. But it
>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we
want to continue
>>>>>>>>> using?
>>>>>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation
for it? (Or just go
>>>>>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Andy Wenk
>> Hamburg - Germany
>> RockIt!
>> 
>> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
>> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
>> 
>> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
>> 
>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater


Mime
View raw message