+1 for Gerrit from me too -- we're using it on Kudu and everyone on the team likes it.
Happy to help admin the server on the gerrit.cloudera.org box which hosts Kudu and Impala -Todd On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Wes McKinney <w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > In my experience, GitHub pull requests are only appropriate for patches > that do not evolve significantly from the first iteration. Changes to > patches frequently cause outstanding points of discussion to be obscured > (the dreaded "comment on an outdated diff"). > > Rebasing also frequently puts GitHub through a loop. > > Too often, as a result, it's tempting to rubber-stamp large patches on > GitHub PRs vs reviewing with great care (which the tool penalizes you for, > IMHO). > > Like Jacques my preference is to have a Gerrit instance available that we > can opt in to (I would also like to use Gerrit for parquet-cpp), but not > require a heavier process necessarily for small patches. > > On Friday, April 15, 2016, Zheng, Kai <kai.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > 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 <javascript:;>] > > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 1:38 AM > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <javascript:;> > > 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 > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
