On 13/10/16 23:44, Menno Smits 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.


  * 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: 

Reply via email to