+1 gerrit, particularly as it helps avoid additional process mismatches for folks working in both openstack and cloudstack On Jun 18, 2012 2:07 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fred Wittekind [mailto:r...@twister.dyndns.org] > > > > ... > > > >> Personally, I've always submitted patches via attaching them to bug > > >> reports. Works well when I find a bug in something, don't have time > > to > > >> wait on anyone else to fix it, so I fix it myself, attach it to a > > bug > > >> report, and hope it's in the next release so I don't have to deal > > with > > >> it again. Works pretty good with most open source projects. > > >> > > >> Fred Wittekind > > >> > > > So I have seen a lot of folks who use this approach, but that > > > typically means that the mailing list gets cced on every action in > > the > > > bugtracker. (mailing lists are where everything happens in Apache > > > projects) We are already on track to hit 1,000 messages on this list > > > alone this month - are we sure we want to add Jira traffic to that > > > volume? > > > > > > --David > > > > > If we don't use the project's bug tracker to track the progress of bugs > > and there patches, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it? > > > > Keeping the patch file attachments in Jira would keep those file > > attachments out of the mailing list (reduction of traffic), and we > > wouldn't run into MTA/MUAs mangling them. > > > > If someone makes a comment in Jira, then CCs the mailing list, that > > isn't any more mailing list traffic than sending to the same thing to > > the mailing list alone. > > Hi, > > I want to keep this thread alive, because this is an important decision in > front of us, and the thread died on Wednesday without getting very far. > > I think we're all agreed that we want to get patches out of email and into > a tool that's better designed for peer review, automated test, and merge. > So that's the decision that's ahead of us -- what tool do we want to use > for this? > > In my opinion, Jira is a _fantastic_ bug tracker, but it's a poor tool for > reviewing patches. The best systems that I have seen will use a dedicated > review tool, and will reflect details back to the bug tracker for archive. > That way, anyone looking at the bug can find the review discussion and see > when a fix was merged, but the actual review itself can happen in a tool > designed for the job. > > I know of two decent options: Gerrit from the Google Android team, and > ReviewBoard. I've seen Gerrit used very successfully in the past. I don't > know anything about ReviewBoard, other than the fact that there is an > instance hosted at reviews.apache.org. (It was also down last week, > which is a concern, but I'm sure we could address any instability problems > if we wanted to depend on it.) > > Does anyone have any other tools that we should look at, or comments on > either Gerrit or ReviewBoard? > > The next step from here would be to pick one or two to evaluate, and put > together a workflow for patch acceptance that we can all agree on. > > Thanks, > > Ewan. > >
