Jan, The tool is ReviewBoard http://www.reviewboard.org/
Here's the original thread that I was thinking of for reference https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2924. There are quite a few Gerrit vs (everything else) posts out there and ReviewBoard would go a long way toward helping put in a lot of what I would like to see but it's (in my opinion) still not as powerful as Gerrit. Trevor On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jan Lieskovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Trevor Vaughan" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 3:08:13 PM > > > > Absolutely! > > > > So, patch reviews are made easier by the following: > > > > GitHub > > > > 1) Syntax highlighting > > 2) Inline commenting that persists over time > > 3) Immediate tracing of tickets to code via hashtags > > 4) Notification of individuals and groups via directed responses (@) > > 5) Easy raw file downloads > > > > Gerrit > > > > 1) Syntax highlighting > > 2) Inline commenting that persists over time > > 3) Forced clean history based on Gerrit rules > > 4) Complete tracking of revision history (GitHub doesn't give you this) > > 5) Ability to restore abandoned changes if necessary > > 6) Authoritative, uncorruptable (unless you allow direct pushing) > > repository. > > Thank you for your time, Trevor. Looking at that list of such handy > features I would say it's definitely worthy to give the move a try. > > > > > If I remember correctly, FedoraHosted will not use any product not > packaged > > with RHEL/Fedora and Gerrit proved to be too difficult to package for > > whatever reason. > > Yes, other thing to consider (from further look) looks it might not be > that easy / straightforward to create own Gerrit instance: > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2924 > > Looks not to be present even in OpenShift yet: > https://www.openshift.com/content/instant-application-gerrit-code-review > > So if we wanted the power of Gerrit, we either need to: > * move to GitHub, > * administer our own SSG specific instance (another resources consumption) > > > > > There is another Gerrit-like system that the FedoraHosted systems can use > > but I didn't find it to be as powerful as Gerrit when I last tried to use > > it. > > Which concrete one you have meant -- got the links? (couldn't find anything > like that, but maybe my queries have just wrong keywords) > > Thank you && Regards, Jan. > -- > Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Trevor > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Jan Lieskovsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hello Trevor, > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Trevor Vaughan" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:12:52 AM > > > > > > > > Honestly +1 here. > > > > > > > > I have pretty much all of my repos hosted under Github and their > patch > > > and > > > > review process is *easy* > > > > > > Can you be more specific what makes that patch review process easy? > > > Anything > > > else behind having the patch review handled via Gerrit? > > > > > > > particularly when combined with the new Gerrit > > > > system that's free for FOSS projects. > > > > > > So would just request Gerrit instance for SSG project via the Fedora > > > infrastructure > > > solve our obstacles? [*] > > > > > > Thank you && Regards, Jan. > > > -- > > > Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team > > > > > > [*] You to understand I am not against moving to GitHub. Just trying to > > > identify > > > the difference / advantages / improvements, and if some of them > would > > > be > > > doable without the move to GitHub (less requirements for the time / > > > resources > > > wrt to actions related with the move) > > > > > > > > > > > Trevor > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ronald < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > > > from a personal perspective, as a github users (read biased opinion), > > > I've > > > > been refrained from contributing and publishing diffs because: > > > > - the process of patch approval was not clear, > > > > - communication around a patch is made difficult by mail (which are > > > already > > > > follinwg throughout the days) > > > > - current open issues are not listed and cannot be discussed by the > > > community > > > > (to propose patch for instance) > > > > > > > > I have the feeling that a move to github would make lots of things > clear > > > for > > > > global collaboration. Although, the fact that the project is hosted > at > > > > fedora is a good quality stamp/branding :) > > > > > > > > my two cents. > > > > > > > > Ronald > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Shawn Wells < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/8/14, 10:16 AM, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, what happened with this in the end? > > > > > > > > I just noticed a few more suggestions that Github-style pull requests > > > would > > > > be really useful. > > > > > > > > There were valid opinions expressed for both staying on FedoraHosted > and > > > > migrating to GitHub. So, effectively, a stalemate. > > > > > > > > The SSG community has grown amazingly -- both in contributors and > usage > > > -- > > > > and because of this success Red Hat is preparing to ship SSG in > future > > > > versions of RHEL [1]. This exacerbates the need for a manageable > > > ticketing > > > > system with easy patch submission as very shortly every RHEL > installation > > > > will have a copy of SSG. FedoraHosted simply wasn't designed to > include > > > the > > > > same tooling and developer ecosystem as afforded on GitHub (and > that's > > > NOT a > > > > ding against it's designers!). > > > > > > > > The community is a coalition of the willing. Our shared purpose > drives > > > the > > > > community, and I strongly feel the need to build out tools that will > > > allow > > > > us to scale. I'm concerned -- likely overly so -- at how to prepare > for a > > > > wave of interest once we begin shipping in RHEL. > > > > > > > > With that said, who am I to *mandate* the migration to GitHub? > Admittedly > > > > part of me wants to just go ahead and do it, however that could come > at > > > > making a non-trivial amount of people (esp. committers, who would be > > > > effected by the change) feel alienated/ignored. Certainly we can't > make > > > > everyone happy all the time, though. > > > > > > > > Thoughts would be *most* welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ show_bug.cgi?id=1038655 > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ _________________ > > > > scap-security-guide mailing list > > > > scap-security-guide@lists. fedorahosted.org > > > > https://lists.fedorahosted. org/mailman/listinfo/scap- > security-guide > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > scap-security-guide mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Trevor Vaughan > > > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc > > > > (410) 541-6699 > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information > -- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > scap-security-guide mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Trevor Vaughan > > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc > > (410) 541-6699 > > [email protected] > > > > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information -- > > > -- Trevor Vaughan Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc (410) 541-6699 [email protected] -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
_______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
