Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7AE71076B for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49637 invoked by uid 500); 19 Feb 2014 12:46:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 49606 invoked by uid 500); 19 Feb 2014 12:46:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 49594 invoked by uid 99); 19 Feb 2014 12:46:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:46:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.108.101.178] (HELO mail.meredrica.org) (80.108.101.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:46:45 +0000 Received: from 178.113.102.217.wireless.dyn.drei.com (178.113.102.217.wireless.dyn.drei.com [178.113.102.217]) (Authenticated sender: stuff@meredrica.org) by mail.meredrica.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E55126BC26 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:46:21 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Kaiten Mail In-Reply-To: References: <5dfa4ae6-75bd-4404-af1a-42f9e36e9b21@email.android.com> <11D9F4AA-4BF9-4C33-A8A8-42CEF2BBA0FA@apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: Review Board From: "Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn." Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:45:51 +0100 To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Message-ID: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 wrote: > >On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. > 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 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. >>> 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 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.