Should we decommission our Review Board instance? On 19 February 2014 14:49, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
-- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
