Although github reviews are by no means perfect, reviewboard is worse.
It loses draft comments if you click in the wrong place; it takes two
page reloads to
be able to reply to a comment; it doesn't work well on mobile platforms;
it doesn't understand file renames, and the comments are divorced from the
Of course, the last point is true of any external tool, but I find reviewboard
constantly frustrating. If the decision was between github and gerrit, I'd
choose gerrit - having used it as part of the Go project, I find it's
in all respects than reviewboard.
On 13 October 2016 at 23:44, Menno Smits <menno.sm...@canonical.com> wrote:
> We've been trialling Github Reviews for some time now and it's time to
> decide whether we stick with it or go back to Reviewboard.
> We're going to have a vote. If you have an opinion on the issue please reply
> to this email with a +1, 0 or -1, optionally followed by any further
> +1 means you prefer Github Reviews
> -1 means you prefer Reviewboard
> 0 means you don't mind.
> If you don't mind which review system we use there's no need to reply unless
> you want to voice some opinions.
> The voting period starts now and ends my EOD next Friday (October 21).
> As a refresher, here are the concerns raised for each option.
> Github Reviews
> Comments disrupt the flow of the code and can't be minimised, hindering
> Comments can't be marked as done making it hard to see what's still to be
> taken care of.
> There's no way to distinguish between a problem and a comment.
> There's no summary of issues raised. You need to scroll through the often
> busy discussion page.
> There's no indication of which PRs have been reviewed from the pull request
> index page nor is it possible to see which PRs have been approved or
> It's hard to see when a review has been updated.
> Another piece of infrastructure for us to maintain
> Higher barrier to entry for newcomers and outside contributors
> Occasionally misses Github pull requests (likely a problem with our
> integration so is fixable)
> Poor handling of deleted and renamed files
> Falls over with very large diffs
> 1990's looks :)
> May make future integration of tools which work with Github into our process
> more difficult (e.g. static analysis or automated review tools)
> There has been talk of evaluating other review tools such as Gerrit and that
> may still happen. For now, let's decide between the two options we have
> recent experience with.
> - Menno
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Juju-dev mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: