I'm not seeing either is good over the other, but did notice that many good discussions in PR reviewing not seen here, though concrete comments for some codes in place are very convenient comparing with JIRA based reviewing. No one just looks to be perfect.
Regards, Kai -----Original Message----- From: Wes McKinney [mailto:w...@cloudera.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 1:38 AM To: dev@arrow.apache.org Subject: Code review tools for Arrow patches 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
