> One downside to that approach is that the extra barrier to entry makes it > more of a 1-on-1 conversation rather than an open discussion via JIRA > comments.
Yes, and I really worry about that. And I (see the "I", that's a totally personal opinion) value keeping discussions as open as possible much more than additional convenience for making and processing review comments. I'll admit however that the current use of JIRA comments for reviews has never burden me all that much so I don't see all that much convenience to be gained by changing that process (but then again, I'm happy using vim for my development, so your mileage probably varies). Typically, if we talk of work-flow, I personally read JIRA updates fairly religiously, which allows me to keep vaguely up to date on what's going on with reviews even for tickets I'm a priori not involved with. I consider it a good, healthy thing. If we move some of the review material outside of JIRA, I strongly suspect this won't be the case anymore due to the burden of having to check multiple places. Anyway, I worry a bit that changing for what I perceive as relatively minor convenience will make us lose more than we get. Just my 2 cents however really. -- Sylvain On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Michael Shuler <mich...@pbandjelly.org> wrote: > When we set up autojobs for the dev branches, I did some digging around > the jenkins / githubPR integration, similar to what spark is doing. I'd be > completely on board with working through that setup, if it helps this > workflow. > > Michael > > > On 07/08/2015 03:02 PM, Carl Yeksigian wrote: > >> Spark has been using the GitHub PRs successfully; they have an additional >> mailing list which contains updates from GitHub ( >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spark-reviews/), and they also >> have their PRs linked to JIRA so that going from the ticket to the PR is >> easily done. >> >> If we are going to start using GitHub PRs to conduct reviews, we should >> follow similar contribution guidelines to what Spark has ( >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Contributing+to+Spark#ContributingtoSpark-PullRequest >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Contributing+to+Spark >> >), >> and have Infra set up the same hooks for our repo. We can also hook up >> cassci to do the same jobs as the AmplabJenkins performs currently. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> As some of you might have noticed, Tyler and I tossed around a couple of >>> thoughts yesterday regarding the best way to perform larger reviews on >>> JIRA. >>> >>> I've been leaning towards the approach Benedict's been taking lately >>> w/putting comments inline on a branch for the initial author to inspect >>> as >>> that provides immediate locality for a reviewer to write down their >>> thoughts and the same for the initial developer to ingest them. One >>> downside to that approach is that the extra barrier to entry makes it >>> more >>> of a 1-on-1 conversation rather than an open discussion via JIRA >>> comments. >>> Also, if one deletes branches from github we then lose our discussion >>> history on the review process which is a big problem for digging into why >>> certain decisions were made or revised during the process. >>> >>> On the competing side, monster comments like this >>> < >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?focusedCommentId=14617221&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14617221 >>> >>>> >>>> (which >>> is one of multiple to come) are burdensome to create and map into a JIRA >>> comment and, in my experience, also a burden to map back into the >>> code-base >>> as a developer. Details are lost in translation; I'm comfortable labeling >>> this a sub-optimal method of communication. >>> >>> So what to do? >>> >>> -- >>> Joshua McKenzie >>> >>> >> >
