Sounds good to set up the system and give it a try. -leo
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Harsh J <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on ReviewBoard. It is pretty simple (looks and use) and works great. > > My only gripe is that its email-link to JIRA is pretty bad, and too noisy. > Phabricator does a better job there. > > On 05-Jan-2012, at 11:14 PM, Matthieu Morel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if someone had some suggestions about the review board we >> could use for reviewing patches in S4? >> >> The idea is not to add burden on the development process, but rather to take >> advantage of new eyes with constructive suggestions, so that we can improve >> and get a more comprehensive understanding of the codebase. >> >> It can also be easier to review patches that way. >> >> Patrick already commented about that in S4-35 "What are your plans re >> review? Free form or some suggested collaboration tool? There's >> http://reviews.apache.org however some projects have switch to gerrit or >> phabricator (see HIVE-2486)". >> >> My take on that is that for the moment we should go for the Apache review >> board, because it's already used in other Apache projects, has fairly good >> reviews, and is probably much easier to set-up than other review boards. And >> it has some support for git. >> >> What do you think? If no one disagrees, I (or someone else) could try to set >> up Apache's review board for S4. >> >> Matthieu > -- Leo Neumeyer (@leoneu)
