Alright, well, I'm down with the move. +1 -- Jeff
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ian Holsman<i...@holsman.net> wrote: > 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 > > > >
