Just a suggestion: A git plugin similar to what Gerrit has would simplify things. For example, Gerrit has a nice little plugin called "Review". Simply doing:
git review In your current branch would push the patchest to gerrit. Something similar for RB, would probably simplify things a lot. Chained PR's could probably be done by specifying in the commit message something like: depends on #<PR ID> Just a thought. Cheers On 19.09.2014 14:32, Nate Finch wrote: There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. On github you need to look in 8 places to see all the stuff up for review, and anything not in juju/juju tends to get lost. This is really important since that can have a big effect on our velocity. I think we should continue using reviewboard until we've had more time to adjust to it. Remember, we were ready to abandon github after the first week, too. I think tooling can solve most of our problems with complicated workflows. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Aquilina <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hey guys. Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors? --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review > comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to > chained proposals. > > I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with > the first issue > > On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. > > On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own > devices to implement chained proposals. > > I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's > paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside >> the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. >> This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare >> and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that >> mindshare. >> >> We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the >> tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors >> (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred >> methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside >> contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply >> return to that. >> >> Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, >> using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the >> team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without >> considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for >> using GitHub. >> >> Jess >> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- ** Frank Mueller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ** Software Engineer - Juju Development ** Canonical -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
