And I'll bet GitHub is a lot faster too. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Hanifi Gunes <hgu...@maprtech.com> wrote:
> +1 > > At the very least GitHub will be UP. > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Parth Chandra <pchan...@maprtech.com> > wrote: > > > +1 on trying this. RB has been pretty painful to us. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Matthew Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Is Travis <https://travis-ci.org/> a viable option for the GitHub > > route? > > > I > > > use it for my own projects to build pull requests (with additional code > > > quality targets like CheckStyle, PMD, etc.). Perhaps that would take > some > > > of > > > the burden off the reviewers and let them focus on the proposed > > > implementations, rather than some of the more tedious aspects of each > > > review. > > > > > > From: Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> > > > Reply-To: <dev@drill.apache.org> > > > Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 10:22 PM > > > To: "dev@drill.apache.org" <dev@drill.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Allowing the option to use github pull requests > > in > > > place of reviewboard > > > > > > I'm up for this if we deprecate the old way. Having two different > > > processes seems like overkill. In general, I find the review interface > > of > > > GitHub less expressive/clear but everything else is way better. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Steven Phillips < > sphill...@maprtech.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I am in favor of giving this a try. > > > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the reason we abandoned pull requests > > > originally > > > > was because we couldn't close the pull requests through Github. A > > > solution > > > > could be for whoever pushes the commit to the apache git repo to add > > the > > > > Line "Closes <request number>". Github would then automatically > close > > > the > > > > pull request. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Jason Altekruse < > > > altekruseja...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Hello Drill developers, > > > >> > > > > >> > I am writing this message today to propose allowing the use of > > github > > > > pull > > > >> > requests to perform reviews in place of the apache reviewboard > > > instance. > > > >> > > > > >> > Reviewboard has caused a number of headaches in the past few > > months, > > > and > > > > I > > > >> > think its time to evaluate the benefits of the apache > > infrastructure > > > >> > relative to the actual cost of using it in practice. > > > >> > > > > >> > For clarity of the discussion, we cannot use the complete github > > > > workflow. > > > >> > Comitters will still need to use patch files, or check out the > > branch > > > > used > > > >> > in the review request and push to apache master manually. I am > not > > > >> > advocating for using a merging strategy with git, just for using > > the > > > > github > > > >> > web UI for reviews. I expect anyone generating a chain of commits > > as > > > >> > described below to use the rebasing workflow we do today. > > > Additionally > > > > devs > > > >> > should only be breaking up work to make it easier to review, we > > will > > > not > > > > be > > > >> > reviewing branches that contain a bunch of useless WIP commits. > > > >> > > > > >> > A few examples of problems I have experienced with reviewboard > > > include: > > > >> > corruption of patches when they are downloaded, the web interface > > > showing > > > >> > inconsistent content from the raw diff, and random rejection of > > > patches > > > >> > that are based directly on the head of apache master. > > > >> > > > > >> > These are all serious blockers for getting code reviewed and > > > integrated > > > >> > into the master branch in a timely manner. > > > >> > > > > >> > In addition to serious bugs in reviewboard, there are a number of > > > >> > difficulties with the combination of our typical dev workflow and > > how > > > >> > reviewboard works with patches. As we are still adding features > to > > > Drill, > > > >> > we often have several weeks of work to submit in response to a > JIRA > > > or > > > >> > series of related JIRAs. Sometimes this work can be broken up > into > > > >> > independent reviewable units, and other times it cannot. When a > > > series of > > > >> > changes requires a mixture of refactoring and additions, the > > process > > > is > > > >> > currently quite painful. Ether reviewers need to look through a > > giant > > > > messy > > > >> > diff, or the submitters need to do a lot of extra work. This > > > involves not > > > >> > only organizing their work into a reviewable series of commits, > but > > > also > > > >> > generating redundant squashed versions of the intermediate work > to > > > make > > > >> > reviewboard happy. > > > >> > > > > >> > For a relatively simple 3 part change, this involves creating 3 > > > > reviewboard > > > >> > pages. The first will contain the first commit by itself. The > > second > > > will > > > >> > have the first commits patch as a parent patch with the next > change > > > in > > > > the > > > >> > series uploaded as the core change to review. For the third > > change, a > > > >> > squashed version of the first two commits must be generated to > > serve > > > as a > > > >> > parent patch and then the third changeset uploaded as the > > reviewable > > > >> > change. Frequently a change to the first commit requires > > > regenerating all > > > >> > of these patches and uploading them to the individual review > pages. > > > >> > > > > >> > This gets even worse with larger chains of commits. > > > >> > > > > >> > It would be great if all of our changes could be small units of > > > work, but > > > >> > very frequently we want to make sure we are ready to merge a > > complete > > > >> > feature before starting the review process. We need to have a > > better > > > way > > > > to > > > >> > manage these large review units, as I do not see the possibility > of > > > >> > breaking up the work into smaller units as a likely solution. We > > > still > > > > have > > > >> > lots of features and system cleanup to work on. > > > >> > > > > >> > For anyone unfamiliar, github pull requests are based on a branch > > you > > > > push > > > >> > to your personal fork. They give space for a general discussion, > as > > > well > > > > as > > > >> > allow commenting inline on the diff. They give a clear reference > to > > > each > > > >> > commit in the branch, allowing reviewers to see each piece of > work > > > >> > individually as well as provide a "squashed" view to see the > > overall > > > >> > differences. > > > >> > > > > >> > For the sake of keeping the project history connected to JIRA, we > > > can see > > > >> > if there is enough automatic github integration or possibly > upload > > > patch > > > >> > files to JIRA each time we update a pull request. As an side > note, > > > if we > > > >> > don't need individual patches for reviewboard we could just put > > patch > > > > files > > > >> > on JIRA that contain several commits. These are much easier to > > > generate > > > > an > > > >> > apply than a bunch of individual files for each change. This > should > > > > prevent > > > >> > JIRAs needing long lists of patches with names like > > > >> > DRILL-3000-part1-version3.patch > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Steven Phillips > > > > Software Engineer > > > > > > > > mapr.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
