(Though honestly if we were okay with hosting by Google, Rietveld would still be an option. But I agree we should first figure out whether we can live with GitHub's review.)
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > Rietveld is no longer an option as our fork of the project is unmaintained > (it was one of the key reasons we even started this process). > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, 10:28 Stefan Krah <skrah.temporar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@...> writes: >> > I guess I'd missed this point. In my opinion, code review in Github is >> unpleasant for anything but small PRs and even for those when there's much >> back-and-forth. At work we switched to Github. We moved code review off >> to >> reviewboard a few months later. Setting up the webhooks between the two >> wasn't hard and code review was a much better experience. Just my 2c. >> >> Agreed. Our current Rietveld setup is superior and much less distracting. >> >> Like the Rietveld house vs. Victorian architecture. >> >> >> Stefan Krah >> _______________________________________________ >> core-workflow mailing list >> core-workflow@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow >> This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: >> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct > > > _______________________________________________ > core-workflow mailing list > core-workflow@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow > This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: > https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
