On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Young <byo...@bigbluehat.com> wrote: > On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it. >>>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <nsla...@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
