Mark Rowe wrote:
On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@google.com
<mailto:o...@google.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe <mr...@apple.com
<mailto:mr...@apple.com>> wrote:
There are also concerns about access to the data store of the
application, backup procedures, etc. Our existing servers
are well understood in this regard. We've also found in the
past that having services spread across different systems
causes confusion when something goes wrong, for whatever
reason, as it's not clear who to contact to address the problem.
For what it's worth, we've had next to zero maintenance effort go
into keeping rietveld running on appengine. As far as I know,
it's been pretty much stable and problem free. But I don't
actually maintain it, so I can't say that for sure. :)
It seems to me that all the issues raised with using reitveld are
solvable. Assuming you all are OK with doing this iteratively instead
of needing all the issues to be resolved on day one, I think we can
probably start taking concrete steps forward.
Given what has been said so far I'm still not clear why Rietvald is a
better option than Review Board.
Well, I haven't heard anything concrete on why Review Board is better
than rveld, either. All I've seen are some posts saying, "You know,
Review Board exists too." Is the UI better? Is the architecture
better? Is the design very different? Is it easier to integrate with
git? Exactly how much work is involved in hosting each of these
solutions? The only thing concrete I've seen is that Review Board is
self-hosting, while rveld is tied to AppEngine.
Joe
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
