Our fisheye instance is up!

[Bob Kerns <rw...@acm.org>]

https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT

Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian!

We should find a place to link to it.

I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review,
but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to
participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join
the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join.

https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15

In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on
specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you
can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your
comment.

I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and
the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to be
limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full
code review.

My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion,
rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to
discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the relevant
patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the
review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over.

Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting
it, if you want input beforehand.

Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us
I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why
that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop
branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas?

Re: Our fisheye instance is up!

[Adam Berry <ad...@apache.org>]

This does look useful, thanks Bob!

I've added a link on the wiki, http://wiki.apache.org/hdt/HDTGettingStarted,
and also on the hdt site, http://hdt.incubator.apache.org/get_involved.html.

Cheers,
Adam

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> We may want to add a link from the Wiki..
>
> On 3/13/13 1:44 PM, "Bob Kerns" <rw...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT
> >
> >Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian!
> >
> >We should find a place to link to it.
> >
> >I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review,
> >but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to
> >participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join
> >the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join.
> >
> >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15
> >
> >In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on
> >specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you
> >can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your
> >comment.
> >
> >I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and
> >the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to
> >be
> >limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full
> >code review.
> >
> >My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion,
> >rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to
> >discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the
> >relevant
> >patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the
> >review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over.
> >
> >Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting
> >it, if you want input beforehand.
> >
> >Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us
> >I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why
> >that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop
> >branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas?
>
>

Re: Our fisheye instance is up!

["Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Great work Bob!

On 3/13/13 1:44 PM, "Bob Kerns" <rw...@acm.org> wrote:

>https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT
>
>Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian!
>
>We should find a place to link to it.
>
>I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review,
>but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to
>participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join
>the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join.
>
>https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15
>
>In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on
>specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you
>can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your
>comment.
>
>I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and
>the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to
>be
>limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full
>code review.
>
>My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion,
>rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to
>discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the
>relevant
>patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the
>review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over.
>
>Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting
>it, if you want input beforehand.
>
>Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us
>I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why
>that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop
>branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas?

Re: Our fisheye instance is up!

["Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

We may want to add a link from the Wiki..

On 3/13/13 1:44 PM, "Bob Kerns" <rw...@acm.org> wrote:

>https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT
>
>Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian!
>
>We should find a place to link to it.
>
>I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review,
>but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to
>participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join
>the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join.
>
>https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15
>
>In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on
>specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you
>can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your
>comment.
>
>I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and
>the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to
>be
>limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full
>code review.
>
>My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion,
>rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to
>discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the
>relevant
>patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the
>review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over.
>
>Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting
>it, if you want input beforehand.
>
>Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us
>I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why
>that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop
>branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas?