On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > Summarizing my feelings: A first-step might be to inch towards some middle > ground where we allow code-review via PRs, but we still require a Jira issue > and a patch to trigger QA (and avoid authorship issues, release note issues, > etc) to "gate" the commit. > > That gives us clear next steps: > 1) Once QA works for PRs automatically, we can remove patch step > 2) Once Yetus doc-maker can pull from GH, we can skip Jira issues > ... > > There's some precedence here with already allowing reviewboard and > phabricator (in my mind). I would be OK with doing code-review on GH and > would personally prefer it over all other tools at our disposal. >
We already do this today. As with review board and phabricator it mostly depends on the reviewer(s) you have or want. For example, when I work on significant doc changes now I put up a PR because that's how Misty likes to do reviews. That said, currently the folks who pay attention to outstanding PRs (I think maybe me and Chia-Ping?) mostly focus on pushing folks to JIRA and/or closing out unresponsive folks.
