I agree, we need a code review tools as well for Mnemonic. We are going to submit large patches. I include mnemonic dev list here for discussion.
Thanks > On Apr 14, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Wes McKinney <w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > hello all, > > We're reaching a junction where larger patches to the Arrow codebase > will become more frequent, and effective code reviews will be > important part of maintaining a high quality project going forward. > > In general, the GitHub pull request UI is not generally thought of as > very productive in large code reviews (some recent exposition on this > topic: > http://www.beepsend.com/2016/04/05/abandoning-gitflow-github-favour-gerrit/). > Many large engineering teams prefer such (git-centric) tools as > Gerrit, though there are other code review tools available. > > I don't think we are at a point where a particular code review process > should be enforced, but more that we should have more tools available > for groups of Arrow committers who wish to collaborate in a particular > way. > > As I'm familiar with Gerrit from working on Apache projects that > Cloudera's involved with, my bias would be to try to get an instance > set up so that larger patches can be reviewed in a more detailed and > transactional way. For example: we could use gerrit.cloudera.org (like > Kudu and Impala), but I would be happy to use any infrastructure > provider. > > There has been some resistance / inaction within the ASF to create an > ASF-managed Gerrit instance: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2205. > > I'm interested to hear other perspectives. > > Thanks, > Wes
