hdt-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Berry <ad...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Our fisheye instance is up!
Date Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:48:55 GMT
This does look useful, thanks Bob!

I've added a link on the wiki, http://wiki.apache.org/hdt/HDTGettingStarted,
and also on the hdt site, http://hdt.incubator.apache.org/get_involved.html.


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> We may want to add a link from the Wiki..
> On 3/13/13 1:44 PM, "Bob Kerns" <rwk@acm.org> wrote:
> >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT
> >
> >Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian!
> >
> >We should find a place to link to it.
> >
> >I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review,
> >but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to
> >participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join
> >the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join.
> >
> >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15
> >
> >In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on
> >specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you
> >can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your
> >comment.
> >
> >I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and
> >the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to
> >be
> >limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full
> >code review.
> >
> >My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion,
> >rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to
> >discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the
> >relevant
> >patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the
> >review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over.
> >
> >Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting
> >it, if you want input beforehand.
> >
> >Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us
> >I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why
> >that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop
> >branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas?

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