I'm all for using pull requests and trying to push contributors that direction. I think it is a better experience overall and makes small reviews much easier. You also never forget to add files from a patch. :)
For issues, I would lean toward continuing to use JIRA as well, but that isn't a strong preference. It's just that we do have a lot of history there. rb On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:30 AM, suraj acharya <[email protected]> wrote: > 1) Yes I agree on using the GitHub for code review. > 2) And if we wish to actively encourage it, we would need to update our > contribution wiki. > 3) Also, I dont want to stop people from submitting patches, so for the > time being I would say lets keep both running. > 4) I would say, lets continue to use JIRA. We have significant history > present here. Moving to issues might need to fine-tune the workflow out > there. > > S > > -Suraj Acharya > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > Infra now offers read/write access to github via a service called > > 'gitbox'[1]. PMCs have the option to join the service and then make > > use of whichever github features they want. > > > > Personally, I find PR management via the github interface way faster > > than other options. In particular, since it has a usable mobile > > interface I'm able to use commute time to do reviews via it. > > > > What do folks think about > > > > 1) opting in generally > > > > 2) using github PRs directly > > > > 3) actively encouraging our community to switch to github PRs > > > > 4) using github issues > > > > > > [1]: https://gitbox.apache.org/ > > > > -- > > busbey > > > -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
