> -I am a little bit concerned about having too many venues for reviewing > patches. It requires > "reviewers" to monitor/work with several tools (it is hard to imagine how > having multiple > venues could speed up reviews, which is one of the problems we currently > have, I think).
Depends if we think of it as community outreach. We could use much more Apache infra and http://reviews.apache.org/ while also encouraging community participation by accepting patches via GitHub PRs too. By the same logic we could expand even more and have folks that follow other venues (GitLab?). Maybe even have a process of funneling patches from GitHub into Review Board? Many possibilities. > -on GitHub we currently build the PRs using Travis CI, it would be > unfortunate to loose that. Seems Review Board supports Travis CI as well - if > we would start to use Review Board, can we please have that enabled? Infra just got today Review Board to work. Yes, I also want build bots and other nice goodies. > (On a convenience note, in review board, a committer needs to download the > patch, commit it locally and then push, right? Feels less convenient than the > GH's green button; and potentially more error prone as well (although I could > see an argument that doing it manually is safer).) Yes, this is a bit more manual. Maybe some bot could create temporary branches we could just clone? I don't know if something to help with this exists or not. > (As a second note, frankly, I wonder if we really need all patches to go > through a review...) I also believe we truly don't. The Apache Commit-Then-Review methodology https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview makes sense for many contributions. Only the more complex things should truly need a review. > I brought up the concern early on about how much of the GitHub workflow, is > usefully mirrored in Apache. And ironically, one of the reasons I > questioned whether all conversations should happen in the issue queue at > Apache (vs on PRs), which you didn't like, was for this reason. I think we were talking about JIRA then? --emi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 13 June 2018 8:40 PM, Neil C Smith <neilcsm...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 17:58 Emilian Bold emilian.b...@protonmail.ch > > wrote: > > > One person's 'knee jerk reaction' is another person's contingency plan... > > > > When did we decide to marry GitHub? > > I brought up the concern early on about how much of the GitHub workflow, is > > usefully mirrored in Apache. And ironically, one of the reasons I > > questioned whether all conversations should happen in the issue queue at > > Apache (vs on PRs), which you didn't like, was for this reason. > > I agree with John that I don't see a problem with Microsoft buying GitHub, > > and you that a contingency plan / being clear about what we're using that > > isn't usefully mirrored is a good idea - just no more or less than it was > > before! ;-) > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 18:01 Jan Lahoda lah...@gmail.com wrote: > > > This works, it seems: > > > > git clone https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-netbeans.git > > > > (The URL I mentioned before is one used for viewing in a browser, not sure > > > > why the URLs are different for cloning and viewing.) > > That's the same on the GH repo too though isn't it?! > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Neil C Smith > > Artist & Technologist > > www.neilcsmith.net > > Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
