+1 At the very least GitHub will be UP.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Parth Chandra <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on trying this. RB has been pretty painful to us. > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Matthew Burgess <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Is Travis <https://travis-ci.org/> a viable option for the GitHub > route? > > I > > use it for my own projects to build pull requests (with additional code > > quality targets like CheckStyle, PMD, etc.). Perhaps that would take some > > of > > the burden off the reviewers and let them focus on the proposed > > implementations, rather than some of the more tedious aspects of each > > review. > > > > From: Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 10:22 PM > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Allowing the option to use github pull requests > in > > place of reviewboard > > > > I'm up for this if we deprecate the old way. Having two different > > processes seems like overkill. In general, I find the review interface > of > > GitHub less expressive/clear but everything else is way better. > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Steven Phillips <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I am in favor of giving this a try. > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the reason we abandoned pull requests > > originally > > > was because we couldn't close the pull requests through Github. A > > solution > > > could be for whoever pushes the commit to the apache git repo to add > the > > > Line "Closes <request number>". Github would then automatically close > > the > > > pull request. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Jason Altekruse < > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > Hello Drill developers, > > >> > > > >> > I am writing this message today to propose allowing the use of > github > > > pull > > >> > requests to perform reviews in place of the apache reviewboard > > instance. > > >> > > > >> > Reviewboard has caused a number of headaches in the past few > months, > > and > > > I > > >> > think its time to evaluate the benefits of the apache > infrastructure > > >> > relative to the actual cost of using it in practice. > > >> > > > >> > For clarity of the discussion, we cannot use the complete github > > > workflow. > > >> > Comitters will still need to use patch files, or check out the > branch > > > used > > >> > in the review request and push to apache master manually. I am not > > >> > advocating for using a merging strategy with git, just for using > the > > > github > > >> > web UI for reviews. I expect anyone generating a chain of commits > as > > >> > described below to use the rebasing workflow we do today. > > Additionally > > > devs > > >> > should only be breaking up work to make it easier to review, we > will > > not > > > be > > >> > reviewing branches that contain a bunch of useless WIP commits. > > >> > > > >> > A few examples of problems I have experienced with reviewboard > > include: > > >> > corruption of patches when they are downloaded, the web interface > > showing > > >> > inconsistent content from the raw diff, and random rejection of > > patches > > >> > that are based directly on the head of apache master. > > >> > > > >> > These are all serious blockers for getting code reviewed and > > integrated > > >> > into the master branch in a timely manner. > > >> > > > >> > In addition to serious bugs in reviewboard, there are a number of > > >> > difficulties with the combination of our typical dev workflow and > how > > >> > reviewboard works with patches. As we are still adding features to > > Drill, > > >> > we often have several weeks of work to submit in response to a JIRA > > or > > >> > series of related JIRAs. Sometimes this work can be broken up into > > >> > independent reviewable units, and other times it cannot. When a > > series of > > >> > changes requires a mixture of refactoring and additions, the > process > > is > > >> > currently quite painful. Ether reviewers need to look through a > giant > > > messy > > >> > diff, or the submitters need to do a lot of extra work. This > > involves not > > >> > only organizing their work into a reviewable series of commits, but > > also > > >> > generating redundant squashed versions of the intermediate work to > > make > > >> > reviewboard happy. > > >> > > > >> > For a relatively simple 3 part change, this involves creating 3 > > > reviewboard > > >> > pages. The first will contain the first commit by itself. The > second > > will > > >> > have the first commits patch as a parent patch with the next change > > in > > > the > > >> > series uploaded as the core change to review. For the third > change, a > > >> > squashed version of the first two commits must be generated to > serve > > as a > > >> > parent patch and then the third changeset uploaded as the > reviewable > > >> > change. Frequently a change to the first commit requires > > regenerating all > > >> > of these patches and uploading them to the individual review pages. > > >> > > > >> > This gets even worse with larger chains of commits. > > >> > > > >> > It would be great if all of our changes could be small units of > > work, but > > >> > very frequently we want to make sure we are ready to merge a > complete > > >> > feature before starting the review process. We need to have a > better > > way > > > to > > >> > manage these large review units, as I do not see the possibility of > > >> > breaking up the work into smaller units as a likely solution. We > > still > > > have > > >> > lots of features and system cleanup to work on. > > >> > > > >> > For anyone unfamiliar, github pull requests are based on a branch > you > > > push > > >> > to your personal fork. They give space for a general discussion, as > > well > > > as > > >> > allow commenting inline on the diff. They give a clear reference to > > each > > >> > commit in the branch, allowing reviewers to see each piece of work > > >> > individually as well as provide a "squashed" view to see the > overall > > >> > differences. > > >> > > > >> > For the sake of keeping the project history connected to JIRA, we > > can see > > >> > if there is enough automatic github integration or possibly upload > > patch > > >> > files to JIRA each time we update a pull request. As an side note, > > if we > > >> > don't need individual patches for reviewboard we could just put > patch > > > files > > >> > on JIRA that contain several commits. These are much easier to > > generate > > > an > > >> > apply than a bunch of individual files for each change. This should > > > prevent > > >> > JIRAs needing long lists of patches with names like > > >> > DRILL-3000-part1-version3.patch > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Steven Phillips > > > Software Engineer > > > > > > mapr.com > > > > > > > > > > > >
