Yes. It’s misleading for folks that stumble on it. On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
> Should we decommission our Review Board instance? > > On 19 February 2014 14:49, Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de> wrote: >> On 19 February 2014 14:15, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:51 , Garren Smith <garren.sm...@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 <rnew...@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 <j...@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 <rnew...@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 <nsla...@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
