On 8/21/18 12:15 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> 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.
Oh, we do? I was under the impression that PRs were largely just told
"File a Jira and attach changes as a patch" for HBase. I guess I'm
ignorant of something that we already "support"?
