On Jun 18, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Wittekind [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> ... >> >>> 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.
Atlassian's Crucible is decent, and would tie in with Jira pretty well…
