This does look useful, thanks Bob! I've added a link on the wiki, http://wiki.apache.org/hdt/HDTGettingStarted, and also on the hdt site, http://hdt.incubator.apache.org/get_involved.html.
Cheers, Adam On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < [email protected]> wrote: > We may want to add a link from the Wiki.. > > On 3/13/13 1:44 PM, "Bob Kerns" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT > > > >Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian! > > > >We should find a place to link to it. > > > >I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review, > >but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to > >participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join > >the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join. > > > >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15 > > > >In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on > >specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you > >can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your > >comment. > > > >I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and > >the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to > >be > >limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full > >code review. > > > >My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion, > >rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to > >discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the > >relevant > >patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the > >review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over. > > > >Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting > >it, if you want input beforehand. > > > >Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us > >I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why > >that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop > >branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas? > >
