On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now > and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should > rather use github. > > +1 >
also +1 for github ... Humbedooh does magic things :) > > > > On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have > an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help. > >> > >> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and > should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for > requests from outside of the group with commit bits. > >> > >> B. > >> > >> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >> > > > > -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! http://www.couchdb-buch.de http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
