> While it's convenient to keep discussion and issue all happening in > jira, I certainly agree with that.
> sometimes that cuts against having multiple people involved. Do you have a sense for why that is? I think switching to the mailing list for code reviews would be a pain, and I'd rather fix whatever problem prevents people from contributing to JIRA discussions (or switch to a real code review tool) than just toss it. --David On 08/12/2010 05:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com> >> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 7:53:59 PM >> Subject: Re: time for a reboot? >> >> OK, then I think that we've been talking past each other the whole time, >> since we've never had a policy anywhere near as rigorous as Apache's R-T-C. >> It's more like, someone *should* review before it's committed, at the very >> least the person who's doing the committing. > > Yes that is C-T-R you've been doing here all along in thrift, just the > R part isn't happening consistently. What I'd like to see more examples > of, with respect to the commit stream, is evidence of work being done in > svn, instead of doing all the "prep" work in jira. Yes by all means > don't commit stuff that breaks the build or fails the tests (to your > knowledge), > but a little evolutionary hacking would be a welcome change. > > Another observation: Apache's mailing list infra is underused in thrift > with respect to collective code reviews and discussions: it all seems > to take place in jira between the issue assignee and the reporter. > While it's convenient to keep discussion and issue all happening in > jira, sometimes that cuts against having multiple people involved. > Not a major complaint, but something that could be worked on at some > point. > > >
