Just in case we're counting, another pro: You are able to seperate pushing branches to github and creating a new version of code for review
Matty On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Eric Snow <[email protected]> wrote: > Given that I've in some part driven the switch to ReviewBoard, I want > to make sure we are all on the same page and any decision on its > future can be made objectively. This is an outgrowth of the current > discussion on whether or not we should ditch reviewboard. > > Let's look at the pros and cons of using it (at least relative to > github). Feel free to expand on any point here or add to them. > > -eric > > ReviewBoard Pros: > > * self-hosted (flexibility, ownership) > * unified review queue with detailed info > * reviews are composed of multiple comments, not just one > * reviews have worklow-supporting metadata (ship-it, issues) > * reviews can be edited as a whole before publishing > * review comments are threaded (provides context) > * customizable (3rd party and custom extensions) > * extensive remote API > * some github integration > * supports chained branches (anti-pattern?) > * allows you to look at new changes in context of old comments > * allows you to look at changes between review request updates > * does not require a PR to exist > > ReviewBoard Cons: > > * self-hosted (hosting, maintenance, etc.) > * adds manual steps to our workflow > * extra steps increase the barrier to contributing > * not a part of the mainstream github workflow > * requires adjusting to a new tool for most people > * web UI has some usability issues (list?) > * emails formatting is complicated (subjective) > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [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
