That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle reviews.
I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A typical review takes less than 20 minutes. Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture. >Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is >usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit. > >That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the >code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world, >pre/post commit is pre/post push. > >Jan >-- > >> >> Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration >>> continues to improve). >>> >>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a >>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant >>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on) >>> >>> B. >>> >>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can >do >>> most of it on >>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and >>> comment them. >>>> >>>> Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it >>> looks >>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue >>> using? >>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go >>>>> first and get the ball rolling?) >>>>> >>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/ >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> -- >> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
