+1. 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 original PR. 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 much better in all respects than reviewboard. rog. 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 > thoughts. > > +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 > readability. > 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 > otherwise. > It's hard to see when a review has been updated. > > Reviewboard > > 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 > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
