Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Vladimir, right, see my reply to Sergi above. On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Igniters, > > As I understand nobody is forced to use this tool, right? > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik > wrote: > > > On

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Igniters, As I understand nobody is forced to use this tool, right? On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:57PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > Cos, I see your point, but I think this one falls under procedural issue, > > no? > >

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:57PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Cos, I see your point, but I think this one falls under procedural issue, > no? Not really. We are talking about a use of a tool to improve the review process. Dictating a tool would be a step to a wrong direction. It's like imposing the

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Cos, I also thought this falls under a procedural vote when starting this. 6 days have passed, vote is closed. On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Igor Rudyak wrote: > +1 > > On Nov 16, 2016 9:15 AM, "Denis Magda" wrote: > > > +1 > > > > — > > Denis > > > >

[RESULT] [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

/VOTE-Use-Upsource-for-Code-Review-td12272.html I will sort out the open-source licensing, update the documentation with instructions [1], and notify the dev list after that. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers Pavel

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Cos, I see your point, but I think this one falls under procedural issue, no? On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > What are we voting for this? > > Fortunately, Apache isn't about democracy. [1] > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

What are we voting for this? Fortunately, Apache isn't about democracy. [1] [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Cos On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:08PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Following the discussion on Upsource [1], > I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > > > +1 > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn > > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > +1 > > — > Denis > > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn > wrote: > > > > Following the discussion on Upsource [1], > > I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 — Denis > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > > Following the discussion on Upsource [1], > I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review > tool. > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 Ok, this makes sense. Sergi 2016-11-16 14:33 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > +1 > > I think we should allow this tool, unless it proves counter productive. If > it does, then we will drop it. > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 I think we should allow this tool, unless it proves counter productive. If it does, then we will drop it. On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Sergi, > > I don't think we should enforce it. > "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Sergi, > > I don't think we should enforce it. > "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki. > > It is up to contributor and reviewer to use it. > For example, if the changes are

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Sergi, I don't think we should enforce it. "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki. It is up to contributor and reviewer to use it. For example, if the changes are small/trivial, creating a review in Upsource is not necessary. If the changes are complex and

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Pavel, I'm not sure I understand the term "official code review tool", can you please elaborate it? We will enforce everyone to register in Upsource and use it or what? Sergi 2016-11-16 13:22 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn : > Proper link to the discussion: >

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Proper link to the discussion: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ Code-Review-Tool-Proposal-Upsource-td12195.html On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn >

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Following the discussion on Upsource [1], > I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review > tool. > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > This

[VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

Following the discussion on Upsource [1], I would like to call a vote on accepting it as our official code review tool. [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) This vote will go on for 5 days. [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.