I'm +1 if we remove step 4 and integrate testing into gerrit instead On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi folks, > > Following up on this. My suggestion for a workflow to help with large > code reviews for Arrow is: > > 1) We set up an Arrow project on gerrit.cloudera.org. I'm hoping we > see gerrit.apache.org someday. > > 2) For reviews needing more careful scrutiny, code reviewer can > request to conduct the CR on Gerrit > > 3) Contributor will push change sets to Gerrit > > 4) [The slightly awkward part] In parallel, contributor will open a PR > on GitHub for purposes of trigging Travis CI verification > > 5) Arrow committer may cherry-pick verified commits to master and push > to ASF git repo > > My understanding (someone more experienced should chime in) is that > Gerrit reviews are all made relative to the parent commit for a > particular change set. Thus, we may not need to worry (for now) about > synchronization issues between Gerrit and GitHub / ASF git. > > Does this make sense? Any other ideas / thoughts welcome > > Thanks, > Wes > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Hanifi GUNES <hanifigu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I worked with Gerrit and GH both. My personal preference would be in > favor > > of Gerrit because of its power user ready-ness and tight integration with > > git + git cli. Afaics there are legitimate concerns around possible > > trickiness of novice users' interaction with Gerrit. Not sure if this was > > mentioned above but there seems a Gerrit + GH plugin that mirrors GH > > pull-requests to Gerrit changes. Never used it but still this may be of > > help. > > > > > > 1: https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/github/+/master/README.md > > > > 2016-05-13 8:47 GMT-07:00 Jason Altekruse <ja...@dremio.com>: > > > >> If everyone else would prefer Gerrit, I would be okay with using it > >> exclusively to simplify things. It does have several nice features > beyond > >> reviewboard as it manages its own git repository, rather than just patch > >> files. > >> > >> Jason Altekruse > >> Software Engineer at Dremio > >> Apache Drill Committer > >> > >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Apparently it is possible, but quite a lot of work: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/andygrunwald/gotrap > >> > > >> > The ideal thing, it would seem, would be to have the Gerrit code > >> > reviews with automatic replication of updated patch sets to a pull > >> > request (i.e. each new patch set force pushes the branch). I don't > >> > think we're going to get that, so I'm not sure how to proceed. The > >> > Kudu team uses Gerrit + Jenkins trigger (e.g. see it in action here > >> > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2992/) > >> > > >> > - Wes > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Micah Kornfield < > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > Does gerrit work well with TravisCI, or will we need to > develop/setup > >> > > another continuous integration solution? > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Robinson > >> > > <danrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Admittedly, coming from the complete opposite end of the > commit-size > >> > spectrum, the JIRA issue + GitHub pull request workflow already feels > a > >> > little frictional for simple bugfixes and additions, so I was wary of > >> > Gerrit. But it actually looks pretty well-suited to small commits. > >> > >> One advantage I'd see to different platforms, though, would be the > >> > potential for JIRA integration. GitHub seems to have a more built-in > >> > solution for this, if it's something you could foresee setting up. But > >> > there seem to be ways to do it with Gerrit too. > >> > >> Clearly having an option to use GitHub pull requests lowers the > >> > barriers to entry for contributors, but I understand easy pull > requests > >> are > >> > a double-edged sword for maintainers! > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _____________________________ > >> > >> From: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> > >> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:46 AM > >> > >> Subject: Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches > >> > >> To: <dev@arrow.apache.org> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm also on board with this if it doesn't deter new contributors > (it's > >> > >> a bit of additional process over GitHub but overall not too hard to > >> > >> learn). > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> I dont know about the other pmc members and committers but I > prefer > >> > just > >> > >>> making Gerrit the only way to submit patches rather than one of > many. > >> > It > >> > >>> seems to work well for Asterix and Kudu. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >
