htrace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Github integration
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:18:23 GMT
There's a joke here about N devs in a room and N opinions that are all
right (and all wrong)!

All I'm asking for here is to make it easy for outsiders to contribute.
Having HTrace show up in the mirror is a big step. The next logical thing
is folks will click the fork button. We should be ready to receive the
incoming help; the details of that implementation are less important to me.

Whatever our individual opinions, GH is a defacto place for developers
these days -- their tools are extremely well socialized. It's a shame to
cut ourselves off from users of that community. I happen to share Colin's
opinions about the inferiority of GH's interface for historical comments (I
personally like gerrit the best of the tools I've used), but that doesn't
mean we should shun it. (I also generally loath JIRA, on par with Elliott's
thoughts).

I think the Apache infra allows comments on PRs that are tied to a JIRA to
land in the comments on the associated JIRA. Is that right Jake? It doesn't
prevent the patch from disappearing from github, but at least the trail of
discussion is preserved and the "single page scroll down" consumption is
still possible. I think we as a project can make it a policy that a patch
must be attached to the JIRA, not just living in a PR (we'll want that for
pre-commit build bot support anyway, right?) Use the PR as another means of
review, not the source of truth on the the change itself. Would that be
enough for you Colin?

On the topic of Gerrit, there was a discussion about bringing it about for
Apache projects. It's been raised and died and raised a number of times.
Gerrit for reviews and push gating + github style build hook detection
would be a great setup for me as well. Maybe we should investigate that as
a separate thread?

-n

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:

> For me pull requests show great history for the issue if things don't get
> bounced around too many different creators. Github really struggles when
> there are issues that hang around for a long time, either because they
> don't have patches yet, or because lots of different people are creating
> candidate patches. However for me email copies of everything that's from
> github provide all the search-ability that I would need to just use github.
>
> However for me Jira is just so disconnected from the code that it's a
> total time sink. I want to create code, look at code, and have my code
> tested.  Every time I have to create a patch and attach it it's a total
> context switch (better than RB but that's not saying much). The integration
> of jira and jenkins just feels like duct-tape and hope when compared to the
> hooks provided by github. So for me jira seems bad at creating patches,
> reviewing patches, and testing patches.
>
> I've used gerrit before and it's awesome. Just a joy to use once things
> are set up and moving. However I don't think that it will work since it's
> not supported by infra and it needs to be the source of truth for a git
> repo.
>
> My preferences, in order, would be
>
> * Gerrit
> * Github only
> * Github with Jira integration
> * Phabricator with jira
> * Review board
> * Jira only
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Colin P. McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Pull requests aren't a replacement for JIRA, because they don't allow
>> you to see the history of an issue over time, link it to other issues,
>> post pictures or other observations, talk to the community, and so on.
>> In a word, github isn't a bug tracker.  And the bug tracker that
>> github does offer is very inadequate... even projects that go entirely
>> github usually use an external bug tracker for this reason.
>>
>> I agree that reviewboard is a bad experience.  The big issue with RB
>> has always been that it's clunky to post patches.  With JIRA, for all
>> it's faults, I just click "attach file," select the file, and go.
>> With RB, I have to fill out a form reminiscent of an IRS 1040 every
>> time I post a patch.  Yes, I realize there are uploader scripts.  But
>> after my uploader script broke the third time, I just decided it
>> wasn't worth it and used the RB interface from then on.  I just don't
>> have time to debug uploader problems, especially things like "you
>> forgot to use --full-index, now I'm going to say 'file doesn't exist
>> in project'"
>>
>> Jake, can you go into more detail about how Crucible is "slow and
>> painful to use"?  Do you mean that the interface is not responsive?  I
>> haven't used Crucible before, but I would be up for evaluating it.
>>
>> I would be up for evaluating gerrit IF we had a plugin that mirrored
>> the gerrit comments to JIRA so that they were indexable and searchable
>> through normal means.  I have used gerrit before.  It offers a great
>> uploading experience (just do "git push"), a GUI for making comments
>> on patches, and the ability to submit a patch with one click.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm a fan of reviewboard and think that the
>> >> projects that have used it have had little issues with it
>> >
>> >
>> > Uggggh review board's never been a good experience for me. If I had my
>> > druthers I'd go all github all the time. Drop jira completely. For me
>> the
>> > pull requests ui is just much closer to how I work.
>>
>
>

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