Just putting some thoughts in regarding the review board model: Every time (I mean EVERY TIME!), I have to copy a bunch of things that I listed in the JIRA (summary, description, branch, JIRA no, group, and upload the same patch) to the review board - to me it is quite a lot of redundant work.
The Github pull request model with CI kicking off as soon as pull request is made is ideal and I consider this to be more efficient. Anyone else have similar thoughts? On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Alejandro Fernandez < [email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the feedback. I created > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AMBARI/Code+Review+Guidelines > as a starting point. > I'm also looking into our workflow to see the pros/cons of switching to > github + pull request model, or another code review provider with more > advanced features. > > Thanks, > Alejandro > > > On 6/2/16, 2:02 PM, "Sumit Mohanty" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >We can look into the already available component names in the JIRA for > >the initial list. > >We should not create fine-grained groups and aim to have at least 3-5 > >devs (more is better) in a single component/area. > > > >Possible list: > >ambari-web > >ambari-views > >ambari-server > >ambari-agent > >stacks-framework/extensibility > >stack-definitions (this could break into separate services) > >blueprints > >alerts/metrics > >logsearch > >security/kerberos/ldap > >stack-upgrade/RU/EU > > > >Once the list is final lets make sure that the available list of > >components in the JIRA matches this list. > > > >This is probably also a good opportunity to see if there are better > >alternatives to reviews.apache.org. > > > >regards > >Sumit > >________________________________________ > >From: Jayush Luniya <[email protected]> > >Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:47 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Code Review groups > > > >+1 on this > > > > > >On 6/2/16, 1:44 PM, "Swapan Shridhar" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>+1. Makes sense. > >> > >>Thanks. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Swapan. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On 6/2/16, 1:27 PM, "Robert Levas" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>Alejandro, I agree. I just hope we (as a group) can manage the wiki > >>>page without letting it get too stale over time. > >>> > >>>+1 > >>> > >>>Rob > >>> > >>> > >>>On 6/2/16, 12:55 PM, "Alejandro Fernandez" <[email protected]> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>>>Hi committers and contributors, > >>>> > >>>>I'm sure most of you have ran into this before; whenever I submit a > >>>>code review I'm always curious to find out which reviewers I should > >>>>include that are knowledgeable in that area. > >>>>So I'll typically run git blame to find the last 2-3 people that worked > >>>>on those files, which takes time and may include reviewers no longer > >>>>interested in that code area or miss reviewers that are interested. > >>>>I want to propose a wiki where developers sign up to be reviewers for a > >>>>particular section, could be a feature, directory, etc. > >>>> > >>>>Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>>This allows developers to opt-in to areas of interest (even outside of > >>>>their current expertise), should produce better code reviews, and make > >>>>it easier for new contributors to find the right people. > >>>> > >>>>Thank you, > >>>>Alejandro Fernandez > >>>> > >>> > > > > > > -- *Mithun Mathew* (Matt) - www.linkedin.com/in/mithunmatt/
