If gerrit is that much better jira we could make a case for it.
I mean.. ASF's using git as well as SVN.. It's isn't a government
department or a fortune 500 with a IT standard which is iron solid.
It's more a support issue. we mainly rely on volunteers to keep the
boxes running (and yes it needs to be hosted on ASF hardware), and
having every project use their favorite tool for doing X makes it much
harder to manage.
as for CTR (commit than review) or RTC (review than commit). thats a
project decision. If you guys feel more comfortable at this stage of
the project to go to RTC, then put it up for vote on do it. your
grownups, you know the risks and rewards.
-I
On 26/06/2009, at 1:00 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:28 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
Yesterday I posted about my git-svn workflow [1]. What I didn't
expect was that a member of ASF infrastructure who is setting up a
pilot project [2] based on git + gerrit [3] instead of svn + jira
asked if we'd be interested in helping test it out.
They are setting it up so it will still push changes back to svn so
we
can always go back to svn if it doesn't work out.
So what would the overall work-flow look like? As others have said,
Gerrit is only for review and Jira would still be in the picture. If
we
had a dedicated code review tool, would we still attach patches to
tickets? I'd be happy if I didn't have to shave that particular yak
anymore.
--
Eric Evans
eev...@rackspace.com
--
Ian Holsman
i...@holsman.net