>On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: >> It is also what newer systems >> do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite) > >I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get discussion >on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result that people >following the issue don't see half the relevant discussion. In particular, >it's common to go off from "reviewing this line of code" to "raising >questions about what the desired behavior is", which is squarely back in >issue-land, not code-review land.
Yes, exactly. Once the data is in two places, there's no way to avoid some discussions occuring in the "wrong" place. And Github shows it clearly happens all the time, so you still have to flip back and forth between looking at N review-streams of comments, and the bug, and maybe looking at the dates of comments, in order to understand everything. >Unfortunately, I don't know how to solve that problem without designating a >"central point where all discussion happens" and ensuring that anything >outside it is mirrored there... Ditto - I think it's inherent if you can reply to review comments in the separate tool. Making the review-tool *worse* for commenting (features/ease-wise) can actually kinda help, at the cost of hurting responding to review comments. Googe's Issue via codereview tooling kinda takes this approach, from what I've seen, with *very* non-integrated patches vs bugs. GPS's comments about the pain of syncing also makes total sense, in that MozReview tried to mostly attach to existing API points of bugzilla and do things noone anticipated would be done. I don't think limiting comments in phabricator is a viable option, nor making it less-featured, so we may have to eat the pain and lash people with wet noodles if they post in the "wrong" place. -- Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp remove ".news" for personal email _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
