You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> on 2014/02/18 15:36:24 UTC
Review Board
Hi folks,
It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it looks
like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue using?
Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
first and get the ball rolling?)
https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: Review Board
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
We’d definitely switch away from Github if the situation changes.
B.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:48, Benjamin Young <by...@bigbluehat.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>>>>
>>>> well nobody really tried it ...
>>>>
>>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
>>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
>>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
>>>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>>>>
>>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
>>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
>>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
>>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
>>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>>>>
>>>> - benoit
>>>
>>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least
>>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
>>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into the
>>> right direction.
>>>
>>> Save travels :)
>>>
>> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
>> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
>> awesome but not enough imo.
>
> We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK with the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with continuing. We're not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more familiar process for new devs--something we need more of! And one of the simplest code review and sharing available with no more maintenance time required from us or the Foundation.
>
> +1 for sticking with Github PRs and encouraging their use.
>
> We still have Jira issues and email for folks that'd like to email/post patches that way. Review of those could even be made into a branch on Github--by the interested developer(s)/committers--for further review/discussion.
>
> Let's keep moving. :)
>
>>
>> - benoit
Re: Review Board
Posted by Joan Touzet <jo...@atypical.net>.
I've used it. It's fine, but GH is probably the lowest-friction option
for most developers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Review Board
On Mar 30, 2014 12:37 AM, "Andy Wenk" <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>
> On 30 March 2014 00:07, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Let's try to wrap this thread up. Too many emails on it already.
> > >
> > > Benoit, let's keep Review Board around for a little while so that
> > > people who want to use it can use it. We get notifications sent to the
> > > list. And as long as we're not linking to it from our website, I can't
> > > imagine it's causing us any harm.
> > >
> > > Live and let live. Excelsior!
> > >
> >
> >
> > tested it over last week on a private installation, and not convinced
> > it's a good tool (neither github is, but that's not the topic).
> >
> > So quick feedback:
> >
> > - making review automatic is possible using hooks
> > - integrtion of jira was painful
> > - the ui is not that intuitive. github is way ahead compared to review
> > board. gerrit is also quite better imo.
> >
> >
> > So let's decommission it, except if someone still want to use it
> > (which i doubt since most are using github).
> >
> > Another tool that looks interesting is crucible [1]? Has anyone tried
it?
> >
> > - benoit
> >
> > [1] https://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/overview
> >
>
> Crucible:
>
> "It's code review made easy for Subversion, CVS, Perforce, and more."
>
> Any idea if it's working also for git? I would jump in to test it ...
Yes it can be used with git:
https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/CRUCIBLE/Setting+up+a+Git+repository+in+Crucible
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Wenk
> Hamburg - Germany
> RockIt!
>
> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
>
> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
>
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Mar 30, 2014 12:37 AM, "Andy Wenk" <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>
> On 30 March 2014 00:07, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Let's try to wrap this thread up. Too many emails on it already.
> > >
> > > Benoit, let's keep Review Board around for a little while so that
> > > people who want to use it can use it. We get notifications sent to the
> > > list. And as long as we're not linking to it from our website, I can't
> > > imagine it's causing us any harm.
> > >
> > > Live and let live. Excelsior!
> > >
> >
> >
> > tested it over last week on a private installation, and not convinced
> > it's a good tool (neither github is, but that's not the topic).
> >
> > So quick feedback:
> >
> > - making review automatic is possible using hooks
> > - integrtion of jira was painful
> > - the ui is not that intuitive. github is way ahead compared to review
> > board. gerrit is also quite better imo.
> >
> >
> > So let's decommission it, except if someone still want to use it
> > (which i doubt since most are using github).
> >
> > Another tool that looks interesting is crucible [1]? Has anyone tried
it?
> >
> > - benoit
> >
> > [1] https://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/overview
> >
>
> Crucible:
>
> "It's code review made easy for Subversion, CVS, Perforce, and more."
>
> Any idea if it's working also for git? I would jump in to test it ...
Yes it can be used with git:
https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/CRUCIBLE/Setting+up+a+Git+repository+in+Crucible
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Wenk
> Hamburg - Germany
> RockIt!
>
> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
>
> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
>
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: Review Board
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
On 30 March 2014 00:07, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Let's try to wrap this thread up. Too many emails on it already.
> >
> > Benoit, let's keep Review Board around for a little while so that
> > people who want to use it can use it. We get notifications sent to the
> > list. And as long as we're not linking to it from our website, I can't
> > imagine it's causing us any harm.
> >
> > Live and let live. Excelsior!
> >
>
>
> tested it over last week on a private installation, and not convinced
> it's a good tool (neither github is, but that's not the topic).
>
> So quick feedback:
>
> - making review automatic is possible using hooks
> - integrtion of jira was painful
> - the ui is not that intuitive. github is way ahead compared to review
> board. gerrit is also quite better imo.
>
>
> So let's decommission it, except if someone still want to use it
> (which i doubt since most are using github).
>
> Another tool that looks interesting is crucible [1]? Has anyone tried it?
>
> - benoit
>
> [1] https://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/overview
>
Crucible:
"It's code review made easy for Subversion, CVS, Perforce, and more."
Any idea if it's working also for git? I would jump in to test it ...
Cheers
Andy
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's try to wrap this thread up. Too many emails on it already.
>
> Benoit, let's keep Review Board around for a little while so that
> people who want to use it can use it. We get notifications sent to the
> list. And as long as we're not linking to it from our website, I can't
> imagine it's causing us any harm.
>
> Live and let live. Excelsior!
>
tested it over last week on a private installation, and not convinced
it's a good tool (neither github is, but that's not the topic).
So quick feedback:
- making review automatic is possible using hooks
- integrtion of jira was painful
- the ui is not that intuitive. github is way ahead compared to review
board. gerrit is also quite better imo.
So let's decommission it, except if someone still want to use it
(which i doubt since most are using github).
Another tool that looks interesting is crucible [1]? Has anyone tried it?
- benoit
[1] https://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/overview
Re: Review Board
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Let's try to wrap this thread up. Too many emails on it already.
Benoit, let's keep Review Board around for a little while so that
people who want to use it can use it. We get notifications sent to the
list. And as long as we're not linking to it from our website, I can't
imagine it's causing us any harm.
Live and let live. Excelsior!
On 19 February 2014 17:45, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> answering from my phone.
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Contributors can still contribute patch files via JIRA as we've done for
>> many years, no reason to change that.
>
>
> Except that if you don't get the diff from the pr in your mail you have no
> way to respond to it except if you go on github.
>
>>
>> Using github pull requests is for the day-to-day core development team to
>> move quickly while still reviewing what we do. Every useful output of that
>> effort will land in our git repository (the fixes / features themselves) or
>> the mailing list (the review comments).
>
>
> since when it became the day-to-day core dev team to move? that's new. I am
> not disagreeing about using github to host some data but it should be just
> an external way to review, pos a request. Not the main.
>
>
>
>>
>> I share your general concern about depending on non-ASF infrastructure,
>> but in this case it is transient (github can go offline or out of business
>> after we've merged pull requests to git-wip-us without affecting us) and
>> replaceable with some effort. I've seen Gerrit a bit and I like it, fwiw.
>>
>> World-weary comments like "And I am tired none pay attention to such
>> detail" is neither constructive nor fair, it would be nice to conduct at
>> least one discussion on dev@ without them.
>
>
> I am calling a cat a cat and beeing honnest about what i feel. Not having
> a way to get the PR diffs in the ml is losing history. Having comments
> without their context attached on the ml is losing history. github is
> offline you have no way to answer to it.
>
> - benoît
>
>>
>> B.
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:58, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >> On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org<javascript:;>
>> >
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> well nobody really tried it ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
>> >>>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
>> >>>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel
>> to
>> >>>>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
>> >>>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
>> >>>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
>> >>>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
>> >>>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - benoit
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at
>> least
>> >>>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
>> >>>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> right direction.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Save travels :)
>> >>>>
>> >>> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
>> >>> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
>> >>> awesome but not enough imo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK
>> with
>> >> the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with continuing.
>> We're
>> >> not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more familiar process
>> for new
>> >> devs--something we need more of! And one of the simplest code review and
>> >> sharing available with no more maintenance time required from us or the
>> >> Foundation.
>> >
>> > Beeing able to use github is not the same, as beeing forced to use
>> > github. (Off topic: I choose to be dependent on, not the contrary).
>> >
>> > I am personally tired to see all this history going in the hand of a
>> > privately held company.. And I am tired none pay attention to such
>> > detail.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I would prefer to let the choice to people and having a
>> > channel between the tools. If we also get the diff from the PRs in the
>> > mailing list and if people are able to answer to them without needing
>> > to open an account on github, then all my concerns are gone.
>> >
>> > - benoit
>>
>>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
answering from my phone.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Contributors can still contribute patch files via JIRA as we've done for
> many years, no reason to change that.
Except that if you don't get the diff from the pr in your mail you have no
way to respond to it except if you go on github.
>
> Using github pull requests is for the day-to-day core development team to
> move quickly while still reviewing what we do. Every useful output of that
> effort will land in our git repository (the fixes / features themselves) or
> the mailing list (the review comments).
since when it became the day-to-day core dev team to move? that's new. I am
not disagreeing about using github to host some data but it should be just
an external way to review, pos a request. Not the main.
>
> I share your general concern about depending on non-ASF infrastructure,
> but in this case it is transient (github can go offline or out of business
> after we've merged pull requests to git-wip-us without affecting us) and
> replaceable with some effort. I've seen Gerrit a bit and I like it, fwiw.
>
> World-weary comments like "And I am tired none pay attention to such
> detail" is neither constructive nor fair, it would be nice to conduct at
> least one discussion on dev@ without them.
I am calling a cat a cat and beeing honnest about what i feel. Not having
a way to get the PR diffs in the ml is losing history. Having comments
without their context attached on the ml is losing history. github is
offline you have no way to answer to it.
- benoît
>
> B.
>
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:58, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >> On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org<javascript:;>
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> well nobody really tried it ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
> >>>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
> >>>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel
> to
> >>>>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
> >>>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
> >>>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
> >>>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
> >>>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - benoit
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at
> least
> >>>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
> >>>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into
> >>>> the
> >>>> right direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Save travels :)
> >>>>
> >>> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
> >>> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
> >>> awesome but not enough imo.
> >>
> >>
> >> We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK
> with
> >> the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with continuing.
> We're
> >> not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more familiar process
> for new
> >> devs--something we need more of! And one of the simplest code review and
> >> sharing available with no more maintenance time required from us or the
> >> Foundation.
> >
> > Beeing able to use github is not the same, as beeing forced to use
> > github. (Off topic: I choose to be dependent on, not the contrary).
> >
> > I am personally tired to see all this history going in the hand of a
> > privately held company.. And I am tired none pay attention to such
> > detail.
> >
> > Anyway, I would prefer to let the choice to people and having a
> > channel between the tools. If we also get the diff from the PRs in the
> > mailing list and if people are able to answer to them without needing
> > to open an account on github, then all my concerns are gone.
> >
> > - benoit
>
>
Re: Review Board
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
Contributors can still contribute patch files via JIRA as we’ve done for many years, no reason to change that.
Using github pull requests is for the day-to-day core development team to move quickly while still reviewing what we do. Every useful output of that effort will land in our git repository (the fixes / features themselves) or the mailing list (the review comments).
I share your general concern about depending on non-ASF infrastructure, but in this case it is transient (github can go offline or out of business after we’ve merged pull requests to git-wip-us without affecting us) and replaceable with some effort. I’ve seen Gerrit a bit and I like it, fwiw.
World-weary comments like "And I am tired none pay attention to such detail" is neither constructive nor fair, it would be nice to conduct at least one discussion on dev@ without them.
B.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:58, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Young <by...@bigbluehat.com> wrote:
>> On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well nobody really tried it ...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
>>>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
>>>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
>>>>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
>>>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
>>>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
>>>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
>>>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> - benoit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least
>>>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
>>>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into
>>>> the
>>>> right direction.
>>>>
>>>> Save travels :)
>>>>
>>> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
>>> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
>>> awesome but not enough imo.
>>
>>
>> We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK with
>> the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with continuing. We're
>> not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more familiar process for new
>> devs--something we need more of! And one of the simplest code review and
>> sharing available with no more maintenance time required from us or the
>> Foundation.
>
> Beeing able to use github is not the same, as beeing forced to use
> github. (Off topic: I choose to be dependent on, not the contrary).
>
> I am personally tired to see all this history going in the hand of a
> privately held company.. And I am tired none pay attention to such
> detail.
>
> Anyway, I would prefer to let the choice to people and having a
> channel between the tools. If we also get the diff from the PRs in the
> mailing list and if people are able to answer to them without needing
> to open an account on github, then all my concerns are gone.
>
> - benoit
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Young <by...@bigbluehat.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well nobody really tried it ...
>>>>
>>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
>>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
>>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
>>>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>>>>
>>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
>>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
>>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
>>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
>>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>>>>
>>>> - benoit
>>>
>>>
>>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least
>>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
>>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into
>>> the
>>> right direction.
>>>
>>> Save travels :)
>>>
>> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
>> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
>> awesome but not enough imo.
>
>
> We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK with
> the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with continuing. We're
> not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more familiar process for new
> devs--something we need more of! And one of the simplest code review and
> sharing available with no more maintenance time required from us or the
> Foundation.
Beeing able to use github is not the same, as beeing forced to use
github. (Off topic: I choose to be dependent on, not the contrary).
I am personally tired to see all this history going in the hand of a
privately held company.. And I am tired none pay attention to such
detail.
Anyway, I would prefer to let the choice to people and having a
channel between the tools. If we also get the diff from the PRs in the
mailing list and if people are able to answer to them without needing
to open an account on github, then all my concerns are gone.
- benoit
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benjamin Young <by...@bigbluehat.com>.
On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>>>
>>> well nobody really tried it ...
>>>
>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
>>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>>>
>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>>>
>>> - benoit
>>
>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least
>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into the
>> right direction.
>>
>> Save travels :)
>>
> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
> awesome but not enough imo.
We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK
with the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with
continuing. We're not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more
familiar process for new devs--something we need more of! And one of the
simplest code review and sharing available with no more maintenance time
required from us or the Foundation.
+1 for sticking with Github PRs and encouraging their use.
We still have Jira issues and email for folks that'd like to email/post
patches that way. Review of those could even be made into a branch on
Github--by the interested developer(s)/committers--for further
review/discussion.
Let's keep moving. :)
>
> - benoit
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>> > On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>>
>>
>> well nobody really tried it ...
>>
>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
>> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>>
>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>>
>> - benoit
>
>
> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least
> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into the
> right direction.
>
> Save travels :)
>
My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service
(and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is
awesome but not enough imo.
- benoit
Re: Review Board
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
> > On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>
>
> well nobody really tried it ...
>
> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
> handle automatically the PRs from github.
>
> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
>
> - benoit
>
maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least
for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for
reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into the
right direction.
Save travels :)
Andy
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: Review Board
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>>
>
> +1
>
>
>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
well nobody really tried it ...
There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the
review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also
not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to
handle automatically the PRs from github.
It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't
have to register to a privately held service just to review a code.
Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking
any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's
still there -. Waiting for my flight right now.
- benoit
Re: Review Board
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes. It’s misleading for folks that stumble on it.
>
+1
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
> >
> > On 19 February 2014 14:49, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
> >> On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good
> now
> >>> and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should
> >>> rather use github.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>
> >> also +1 for github ... Humbedooh does magic things :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we
> have
> >>> an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and
> >>> should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do
> for
> >>> requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <
> >>> stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle
> >>> reviews.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great
> way
> >>> to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A
> >>> typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
> >>>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
> >>>>>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
> >>>>>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before
> the
> >>>>>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
> >>>>>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the
> integration
> >>>>>>>>> continues to improve).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
> >>>>>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every
> participant
> >>>>>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
> >>>>>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you
> can
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>> most of it on
> >>>>>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
> >>>>>>>>> comment them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But
> it
> >>>>>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
> >>>>>>>>> using?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just
> go
> >>>>>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andy Wenk
> >> Hamburg - Germany
> >> RockIt!
> >>
> >> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
> >> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
> >>
> >> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
> >>
> >> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Noah Slater
> > https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: Review Board
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
Yes. It’s misleading for folks that stumble on it.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
>
> On 19 February 2014 14:49, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now
>>> and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should
>>> rather use github.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> also +1 for github ... Humbedooh does magic things :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have
>>> an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and
>>> should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for
>>> requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> B.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <
>>> stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle
>>> reviews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way
>>> to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A
>>> typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
>>>>>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
>>>>>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
>>>>>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>>>>>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>>>>>>>>> continues to improve).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>>>>>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>>>>>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>>>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> most of it on
>>>>>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>>>>>>>>> comment them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>>>>>>>>> using?
>>>>>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>>>>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andy Wenk
>> Hamburg - Germany
>> RockIt!
>>
>> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
>> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
>>
>> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
>>
>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: Review Board
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Should we decommission our Review Board instance?
On 19 February 2014 14:49, Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de> wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now
>> and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should
>> rather use github.
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> also +1 for github ... Humbedooh does magic things :)
>
>
>
>> >
>> > On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have
>> an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
>> >>
>> >> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and
>> should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for
>> requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
>> >>
>> >> B.
>> >>
>> >> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <
>> stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle
>> reviews.
>> >>>
>> >>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way
>> to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A
>> typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>> >>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
>> >>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
>> >>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
>> >>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>> >>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jan
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>> >>>>>> continues to improve).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>> >>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>> >>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> B.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>> >>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
>> >>>> do
>> >>>>>> most of it on
>> >>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>> >>>>>> comment them.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>> >>>>>> looks
>> >>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>> >>>>>> using?
>> >>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>> >>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andy Wenk
> Hamburg - Germany
> RockIt!
>
> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
>
> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
>
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: Review Board
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now
> and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should
> rather use github.
>
> +1
>
also +1 for github ... Humbedooh does magic things :)
> >
> > On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have
> an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
> >>
> >> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and
> should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for
> requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
> >> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <
> stuff@meredrica.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle
> reviews.
> >>>
> >>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way
> to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A
> typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
> >>>
> >>> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
> >>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
> >>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
> >>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
> >>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
> >>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jan
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
> >>>>>> continues to improve).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
> >>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
> >>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
> >>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
> >>>> do
> >>>>>> most of it on
> >>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
> >>>>>> comment them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
> >>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
> >>>>>> using?
> >>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
> >>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: Review Board
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should rather use github.
+1
>
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
>>
>> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
>>
>> B.
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>
>>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle reviews.
>>>
>>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
>>>
>>> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
>>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
>>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>>>>
>>>> That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
>>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>>>>>> continues to improve).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
>>>> do
>>>>>> most of it on
>>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>>>>>> comment them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>>>>>> using?
>>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>
Re: Review Board
Posted by Garren Smith <ga...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Robert here. Github integration is getting really good now and its so easy to review a pull request with Github. I think we should rather use github.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 2:49 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
>
> Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
>
> B.
>
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>
>> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle reviews.
>>
>> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
>>
>> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
>>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
>>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>>>
>>> That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
>>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>>>>> continues to improve).
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>>>>>
>>>>> B.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
>>> do
>>>>> most of it on
>>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>>>>> comment them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>>>>> looks
>>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>>>>> using?
>>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
Re: Review Board
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
We intend to review work before merging to master, which is why we have an account on Review Board in the first place, to see if it can help.
Given the level of integration with github now, I think we can and should use pull requests for intra-team work just like we already do for requests from outside of the group with commit bits.
B.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle reviews.
>
> I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
>
> Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
>> Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
>> usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>>
>> That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
>> code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>> pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>>
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>>
>>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>>>> continues to improve).
>>>>
>>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
>> do
>>>> most of it on
>>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>>>> comment them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>>>> looks
>>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>>>> using?
>>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> --
> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Review Board
Posted by "Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn." <st...@meredrica.org>.
That's also how we did it. It seems the most sensible way to handle reviews.
I would really encourage you all to try reviews, they are a great way to improve code quality. They are quick to create and quick to read. A typical review takes less than 20 minutes.
Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
><st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>
>> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture.
>Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is
>usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
>
>That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the
>code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world,
>pre/post commit is pre/post push.
>
>Jan
>--
>
>>
>> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>>> continues to improve).
>>>
>>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>>>
>>> B.
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can
>do
>>> most of it on
>>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>>> comment them.
>>>>
>>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>>> looks
>>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>>> using?
>>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Review Board
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 Feb 2014, at 03:13 , Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture. Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
That’s why we use feature/fix branches. The review happens before the code lands on master (or other release branch). In our git world, pre/post commit is pre/post push.
Jan
--
>
> Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>> continues to improve).
>>
>> The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>> non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>> installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>>
>> B.
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
>> <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can do
>> most of it on
>>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>> comment them.
>>>
>>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>> looks
>>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>> using?
>>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>>
>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> --
> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Review Board
Posted by "Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn." <st...@meredrica.org>.
The patch creation is simple but the real problem is the culture. Review board assumes pre commit Reviews where on fact the code is usually already pushed, which makes the review post commit.
Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration
>continues to improve).
>
>The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a
>non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant
>installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
>
>B.
>
>On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn.
><st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
>
>> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can do
>most of it on
>> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and
>comment them.
>>
>> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it
>looks
>>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue
>using?
>>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>>
>>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Review Board
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
I think we should use github instead (especially as the integration continues to improve).
The 'upload patch file' approach for Review Board makes it a non-starter in my opinion. (Yes, we could insist every participant installs command lines tools to finesse that, but come on)
B.
On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:25, Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn. <st...@meredrica.org> wrote:
> I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can do most of it on
> github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and comment them.
>
> Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it looks
>> like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue using?
>> Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>> first and get the ball rolling?)
>>
>> https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>>
>> Thanks,
>
> --
> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Review Board
Posted by "Florian Westreicher Bakk.techn." <st...@meredrica.org>.
I have used review board in the past. It's easy to use but you can do most of it on
github nowadays. Just open pull requests, others can review and comment them.
Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>It's been two weeks since we got our Review Board set up. But it looks
>like nobody is using it. Is this something we want to continue using?
>Does someone want to draft some documentation for it? (Or just go
>first and get the ball rolling?)
>
>https://reviews.apache.org/groups/couchdb/
>
>Thanks,
--
Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.