Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- 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 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Fwd: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- 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 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19.09.2014 03:32, David Cheney wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. +1, Due to all the steps you need (to automate) in order to post the review correctly, you're on your own w.r.t. chained diffs, finally the annoying web UI win non-obvious and ways of doing things; I'm a bit disappointed at what RB brings more than just using GitHub PRs. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev - -- Dimiter Naydenov dimiter.nayde...@canonical.com juju-core team -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUG+WLAAoJENzxV2TbLzHwbw8H/3a7LlCW4FUYsGklM2/P78+q 8KpjZkNrbSD4PY9CGuRIcOKrT40VCJXMuMlfsaXyIXPktD+zTQGjAjlFMAXaA5El LUmRIwL4vHJuioNerkTBlgyzWqsyl8KA0M1IKilga+GQk7hhEvPcmWLBQI+Qniz2 +GvjG4xUb+QSsFpL3TIbZC8vMu0vsFU3N73v5LTxhxh3udr0AM8dHBHIuVcMHXMF 1nAs4DbIBDSKoJ5e7vvnKn/h6XiBP2iJNwWZBwnjpKEwXW8fSX7vR16CQDOQd4Pd 3KiDTMc1qC32SqAfpvoOc9oEJad0r/+xFvV1phBAS9X5ry3AuBpOHmDiPB/EwCA= =n7u4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- 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 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- ** Frank Mueller frank.muel...@canonical.com ** Software Engineer - Juju Development ** Canonical -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
Hey guys. Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors? --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com [9] wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com [1] wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com [2] wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [3] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [4] -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [5] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [6] -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [7] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [8] -- ** Frank Mueller frank.muel...@canonical.com [10] ** Software Engineer - Juju Development ** Canonical Links: -- [1] mailto:david.che...@canonical.com [2] mailto:jesse.m...@canonical.com [3] mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [4] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [5] mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [6] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [7] mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [8] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [9] mailto:roger.pe...@canonical.com [10] mailto:frank.muel...@canonical.com -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. On github you need to look in 8 places to see all the stuff up for review, and anything not in juju/juju tends to get lost. This is really important since that can have a big effect on our velocity. I think we should continue using reviewboard until we've had more time to adjust to it. Remember, we were ready to abandon github after the first week, too. I think tooling can solve most of our problems with complicated workflows. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net wrote: Hey guys. Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors? --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- 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 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- ** Frank Mueller frank.muel...@canonical.com ** Software Engineer - Juju Development ** Canonical -- 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
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
Im more than willing to help improve the work flow for you guys. As well as fixup issues you giys feel rb has Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Nate Finch nate.fi...@canonical.com Date: 19/09/2014 1:32 PM (GMT+01:00) To: Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net Cc: juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing? There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. On github you need to look in 8 places to see all the stuff up for review, and anything not in juju/juju tends to get lost. This is really important since that can have a big effect on our velocity. I think we should continue using reviewboard until we've had more time to adjust to it. Remember, we were ready to abandon github after the first week, too. I think tooling can solve most of our problems with complicated workflows. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net wrote: Hey guys. Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors? --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- 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 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- ** Frank Mueller frank.muel...@canonical.com ** Software Engineer - Juju Development ** Canonical -- Juju-dev mailing
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
Just a suggestion: A git plugin similar to what Gerrit has would simplify things. For example, Gerrit has a nice little plugin called Review. Simply doing: git review In your current branch would push the patchest to gerrit. Something similar for RB, would probably simplify things a lot. Chained PR's could probably be done by specifying in the commit message something like: depends on #PR ID Just a thought. Cheers On 19.09.2014 14:32, Nate Finch wrote: There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. On github you need to look in 8 places to see all the stuff up for review, and anything not in juju/juju tends to get lost. This is really important since that can have a big effect on our velocity. I think we should continue using reviewboard until we've had more time to adjust to it. Remember, we were ready to abandon github after the first week, too. I think tooling can solve most of our problems with complicated workflows. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.netmailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net wrote: Hey guys. Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors? --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.commailto:roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.commailto:david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.commailto:jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.commailto: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.commailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
I don't yet have a strong opinion either way. I do think that since we invested so much time in getting Review Board set up, we should use it for a bit longer to see if these are growing pains. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Gabriel Samfira gsamf...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote: Just a suggestion: A git plugin similar to what Gerrit has would simplify things. For example, Gerrit has a nice little plugin called Review. Simply doing: git review In your current branch would push the patchest to gerrit. Something similar for RB, would probably simplify things a lot. Chained PR's could probably be done by specifying in the commit message something like: depends on #PR ID Just a thought. Cheers On 19.09.2014 14:32, Nate Finch wrote: There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. On github you need to look in 8 places to see all the stuff up for review, and anything not in juju/juju tends to get lost. This is really important since that can have a big effect on our velocity. I think we should continue using reviewboard until we've had more time to adjust to it. Remember, we were ready to abandon github after the first week, too. I think tooling can solve most of our problems with complicated workflows. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net wrote: Hey guys. Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors? --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote: On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's paying it's way. The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look at new changes in the context of old comments, to see where and how those comments have been addressed. So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very good point about keeping things mainstream. I guess there's the potential for some third party tool to address my issue above. So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace github, even if it is awkward in some ways. cheers, rog. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek jesse.m...@canonical.com wrote: We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that mindshare. We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply return to that. Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now, using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for using GitHub. Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Nate Finch wrote: There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. Can I ask how kanban doesn't do this job for you? I've heard this said a couple of times but I realized the way I find out what needs to be looked at is to go to kanban not github. I do that for the same reason. We've got teams working on 4 different github projects under two different orgs at the moment. Using the source control as a source seems pretty doomed. You already have a 3rd party tool to track that, kanban. Rick -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19.09.2014 16:44, Richard Harding wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Nate Finch wrote: There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. Can I ask how kanban doesn't do this job for you? I've heard this said a couple of times but I realized the way I find out what needs to be looked at is to go to kanban not github. I do that for the same reason. We've got teams working on 4 different github projects under two different orgs at the moment. Using the source control as a source seems pretty doomed. You already have a 3rd party tool to track that, kanban. +1, In addition you can always check https://github.com/juju/juju/pulls to see what's in the queue. For sub-repositories it's the same, like https://github.com/juju/names/pulls. While I agree it's not all in one place, I tend to work on the main repo mostly, and alternatively you can check the Notifications page (https://github.com/notifications) to see all activity. Dimiter Rick - -- Dimiter Naydenov dimiter.nayde...@canonical.com juju-core team -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHDXWAAoJENzxV2TbLzHwV68H/1kJfNtOvaPSeKIc9DheDmUr ainEU/blIbY4CQe04lybX6vVoK+KZaFwddoeFa17rou7ReDckp3S4yBTZXcD0KO0 QvwYbuqnepWi9pKN3dcuJftknaEE9vLqslWzjTFyZmjS96RGXT3WlR/CrCCZnjUw Yr7K33ytjcr0oBo8bEk0G0wOkQvwVuvlnNLPPaZF681QyqvODRD+jmgs7SGeUuJu GS6vLzIppd6xJQiDy72slcLdAcMyPkqCm2jOTosy5ZSMDKHjxgIP0s9uaHmTIJO2 BdZxik0TZfsA7r+DRwhQndvKdmklmcLUQAxp5+oY/nPyGe0s5lZ9PC37p+BtrD8= =L6g5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Dimiter Naydenov dimiter.nayde...@canonical.com wrote: +1, In addition you can always check https://github.com/juju/juju/pulls to see what's in the queue. For sub-repositories it's the same, like https://github.com/juju/names/pulls. While I agree it's not all in one place, I tend to work on the main repo mostly, and alternatively you can check the Notifications page (https://github.com/notifications) to see all activity. The problem is when your PR in another repo sits there because everyone tends to work on the main repo mostly. A unified review queue solves that quite nicely. :) -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
We will all be seeing each other in 2 weeks we can discuss it then On Friday, September 19, 2014, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Matthew Williams matthew.willi...@canonical.com javascript:; wrote: I do think it's too early to tell though. Why not give it another week or 2 then discuss in the cross teams if we want to keep it or not +1 -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com javascript:; 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
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: I agree that reviewboard as we currently have it now adds extra work to our workflow. Not only does this impact the juju team, but it does add a stumbling block to more community involvement. However, my firm belief is that the real pain points are addressable in the short term. Let's give it a chance. Just to be clear, while I have spent a lot of time on setting up ReviewBoard and believe it's our best option, I appreciate this discussion and gladly accept both positive and negative feedback. If we decide that ReviewBoard isn't worth it, I'll support the decision and move on. :) Furthermore, I recognize that the future of reviewboard for our team is mostly up to the team leads but ultimately is driven by the whole team. -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Gabriel Samfira gsamf...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote: Just a suggestion: A git plugin similar to what Gerrit has would simplify things. For example, Gerrit has a nice little plugin called Review. Simply doing: git review In your current branch would push the patchest to gerrit. Something similar for RB, would probably simplify things a lot. Chained PR's could probably be done by specifying in the commit message something like: depends on #PR ID That would definitely ease the pain. Even if we have automation of the main workflow, a git plugin would still help with chained branches (which github does not support). -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:32 PM, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. It will be worth being extra clear on ReviewBoard's pros and cons. I'll open a new thread. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue I for one haven't. On several occasions I have made a comment that I later realized was not valid, but am not able to simply remove since it already sent. On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. Agreed. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. rbt supports it just fine and reviewboard itself supports it (see the Depends on field on every review request). What support did you have in mind? -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
Given that I've in some part driven the switch to ReviewBoard, I want to make sure we are all on the same page and any decision on its future can be made objectively. This is an outgrowth of the current discussion on whether or not we should ditch reviewboard. Let's look at the pros and cons of using it (at least relative to github). Feel free to expand on any point here or add to them. -eric ReviewBoard Pros: * self-hosted (flexibility, ownership) * unified review queue with detailed info * reviews are composed of multiple comments, not just one * reviews have worklow-supporting metadata (ship-it, issues) * reviews can be edited as a whole before publishing * review comments are threaded (provides context) * customizable (3rd party and custom extensions) * extensive remote API * some github integration * supports chained branches (anti-pattern?) * allows you to look at new changes in context of old comments * allows you to look at changes between review request updates * does not require a PR to exist ReviewBoard Cons: * self-hosted (hosting, maintenance, etc.) * adds manual steps to our workflow * extra steps increase the barrier to contributing * not a part of the mainstream github workflow * requires adjusting to a new tool for most people * web UI has some usability issues (list?) * emails formatting is complicated (subjective) -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: Given that I've in some part driven the switch to ReviewBoard, I want to make sure we are all on the same page and any decision on its future can be made objectively. This is an outgrowth of the current discussion on whether or not we should ditch reviewboard. Let's look at the pros and cons of using it (at least relative to github). Feel free to expand on any point here or add to them. -eric ReviewBoard Pros: * self-hosted (flexibility, ownership) * unified review queue with detailed info * reviews are composed of multiple comments, not just one * reviews have worklow-supporting metadata (ship-it, issues) * reviews can be edited as a whole before publishing * review comments are threaded (provides context) * customizable (3rd party and custom extensions) * extensive remote API * some github integration * supports chained branches (anti-pattern?) * allows you to look at new changes in context of old comments * allows you to look at changes between review request updates * does not require a PR to exist ReviewBoard Cons: * self-hosted (hosting, maintenance, etc.) * adds manual steps to our workflow * extra steps increase the barrier to contributing * not a part of the mainstream github workflow * requires adjusting to a new tool for most people * web UI has some usability issues (list?) * emails formatting is complicated (subjective) Solutions: * add integration between github and reviewboard (github webhooks) - addresses manual steps (i.e. barrier-to-entry/workflow concerns) * provide a git plugin that wraps rbt and better supports our workflow - addresses complex workflow concerns * (unlikely) Modify and add to the web UI (via an extension) - addresses web UI concerns * (unlikely) Modify and add to the email formatting (via an extension) - addresses email formatting concerns -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
I am more than willing to help out wity those modifications Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com Date: 19/09/2014 5:41 PM (GMT+01:00) To: juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: Given that I've in some part driven the switch to ReviewBoard, I want to make sure we are all on the same page and any decision on its future can be made objectively. This is an outgrowth of the current discussion on whether or not we should ditch reviewboard. Let's look at the pros and cons of using it (at least relative to github). Feel free to expand on any point here or add to them. -eric ReviewBoard Pros: * self-hosted (flexibility, ownership) * unified review queue with detailed info * reviews are composed of multiple comments, not just one * reviews have worklow-supporting metadata (ship-it, issues) * reviews can be edited as a whole before publishing * review comments are threaded (provides context) * customizable (3rd party and custom extensions) * extensive remote API * some github integration * supports chained branches (anti-pattern?) * allows you to look at new changes in context of old comments * allows you to look at changes between review request updates * does not require a PR to exist ReviewBoard Cons: * self-hosted (hosting, maintenance, etc.) * adds manual steps to our workflow * extra steps increase the barrier to contributing * not a part of the mainstream github workflow * requires adjusting to a new tool for most people * web UI has some usability issues (list?) * emails formatting is complicated (subjective) Solutions: * add integration between github and reviewboard (github webhooks) - addresses manual steps (i.e. barrier-to-entry/workflow concerns) * provide a git plugin that wraps rbt and better supports our workflow - addresses complex workflow concerns * (unlikely) Modify and add to the web UI (via an extension) - addresses web UI concerns * (unlikely) Modify and add to the email formatting (via an extension) - addresses email formatting concerns -- 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
Juju stable 1.20.8 is proposed for release
juju-core 1.20.8 A new proposed stable release of Juju, juju-core 1.20.8, is now available. This release may replace stable 1.20.7 after a period of evaluation. If no issues are raised about this version, it will released on or after September 24, 2014. Getting Juju juju-core 1.20.8 is available for utopic and backported to earlier series in the following PPA: https://launchpad.net/~juju/+archive/proposed The proposed packages in this archive use the proposed simple-streams. You must configure the 'tools-metadata-url' option in your environments.yaml to use the matching juju tools. tools-metadata-url: https://streams.canonical.com/juju/proposed/tools This ensures a clean separation between the stable tools and the proposed tools. Production environments based on stable juju cannot accidentally upgrade to a proposed release. The 'tools-metadata-url' option must be set to clearly state the environment is for evaluating proposed versions. If you have a environment dedicated to evaluating upgrades of juju you can switch your testing environment to use the proposed streams like so: juju set-env tools-metadata-url=https://streams.canonical.com/juju/proposed/tools This change may take hours to propagate. You can upgrade when the proposed url is shown to be in the env. juju get-env tools-metadata-url Notable Changes This releases addresses stability and performance issues. Resolved issues * Maas provider assumes machine uses dhcp for eth0 Lp 1361374 * Relation-get with invalid relation name panics agent Lp 1365412 * Bootstrap on maas fails trying to access cloud-images.ubuntu.com Lp 1365135 * Not okforstorage error when deploying local charm Lp 1308146 * Add-machine containers should default to latest lts Lp 1363971 * Juju add-machine still assumes precise (maas) Lp 1315473 * Juju-core client panics with juju set empty string Lp 1348829 * --keep-broken option still allows instance to be stopped Lp 1365772 * Some third party embedded sources in the source tarball are missing dependencies.tsv entries Lp 1368321 * Licensing is inconsistent Lp 1368358 * Sshstorage fails in non-english locale Lp 1367695 Finally We encourage everyone to subscribe the mailing list at juju-...@lists.canonical.com, or join us on #juju-dev on freenode. -- Curtis Hovey Canonical Cloud Development and Operations http://launchpad.net/~sinzui -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
At the risk of opening a can of worms: Reviewboard doesn't have to be a barrier to contributing. We could allow new contributors/ drive by fixes to use github. Matty On 19 Sep 2014 17:05, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net wrote: I am more than willing to help out wity those modifications Cool. I'll get in touch. -eric -- 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
Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
If we automate the creation of reviewboard reviews whenever a pull request is made, it would make it trivial even for outsiders. On Sep 19, 2014 5:01 PM, Matthew Williams matthew.willi...@canonical.com wrote: At the risk of opening a can of worms: Reviewboard doesn't have to be a barrier to contributing. We could allow new contributors/ drive by fixes to use github. Matty On 19 Sep 2014 17:05, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net wrote: I am more than willing to help out wity those modifications Cool. I'll get in touch. -eric -- 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 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:32 PM, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com wrote: There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to chained proposals. It will be worth being extra clear on ReviewBoard's pros and cons. I'll open a new thread. I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with the first issue I for one haven't. On several occasions I have made a comment that I later realized was not valid, but am not able to simply remove since it already sent. On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. Agreed. On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own devices to implement chained proposals. rbt supports it just fine and reviewboard itself supports it (see the Depends on field on every review request). What support did you have in mind? Ian and Tim want whatever they had with launchpad. I never used lp like that so I never felt the loss; I just propose one branch at a time and have others waiting in the wings that I can propose as soon as the predecessor lands. -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
Thats what im suggesting be it coding somethign from scratch or adapting RB to make it much easier to work with. --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 23:01, Matthew Williams wrote: At the risk of opening a can of worms: Reviewboard doesn't have to be a barrier to contributing. We could allow new contributors/ drive by fixes to use github. Matty On 19 Sep 2014 17:05, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com [4] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net [1] wrote: I am more than willing to help out wity those modifications Cool. I'll get in touch. -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [2] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [3] Links: -- [1] mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net [2] mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [3] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [4] mailto:eric.s...@canonical.com -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: The Pros and Cons of ReviewBoard.
I also suggested in another part of the thread sending an email when a new request is submitted to all those invovled with the reviewing. --- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T On 2014-09-19 23:14, Nate Finch wrote: If we automate the creation of reviewboard reviews whenever a pull request is made, it would make it trivial even for outsiders. On Sep 19, 2014 5:01 PM, Matthew Williams matthew.willi...@canonical.com [7] wrote: At the risk of opening a can of worms: Reviewboard doesn't have to be a barrier to contributing. We could allow new contributors/ drive by fixes to use github. Matty On 19 Sep 2014 17:05, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com [4] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Aquilina jaquil...@eagleeyet.net [1] wrote: I am more than willing to help out wity those modifications Cool. I'll get in touch. -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [2] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [3] -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [5] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [6] Links: -- [1] mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net [2] mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [3] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [4] mailto:eric.s...@canonical.com [5] mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com [6] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev [7] mailto:matthew.willi...@canonical.com -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
