couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Board
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:22:30 GMT
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