On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 09:13 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote: > If gerrit is that much better jira we could make a case for it.
My understanding is that Gerrit is merely a tool for code review, if so, we'd still need something/Jira for issue tracking. > 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. Ok, this raises a question for me. Assuming that we were to develop an RTC work-flow that included Git for version control and Gerrit for code review, would there still be a requirement to attach patches to the Jira issue? I ask because ASF's Jira has that extra radio button on the attachment submission page for the contributor to indicate that they grant rights under the Apache License. I've heard that it's a requirement that patches be attached to the respective issue in Jira so that that button can be ticked. -- Eric Evans [email protected]
