Pavel, Makes sense to me. Let’s start the voting process then adding the link to this discussion to the voting thread. I would wait no less than 5 days giving a chance to everyone to share his/her opinion.
— Denis > On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Denis, > > Contributors will have to start a review on branch or pull request manually > (a couple of clicks really), then attach an URL to the JIRA ticket. > Example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4116 > >> are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool > for review process > Some projects use Crucible: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/ > Apache Hive used Phabricator in the past. > > > Mike, > >> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub? > Nothing is wrong with GitHub, I think it is the second best option. > Still, Upsource is much nicer, so I'd like to explore this possibility. > >> commercial tool I have to pay for > They provide open source license. We license TeamCity this way. > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael André Pearce < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub? >> >> Code is there anyhow... >> >> I've found this seems to be the way a lot of projects have gone. >> >> It allows me to review the code without checkout >> >> I can comment inline with a pr or code commit >> >> I can fork a project to my own space and create a pr back to the main repo >> >> It updates when I make a commit >> >> Supports multiple reviewers. >> >> Eco system of bots >> >> It doesn't tie me into a commercial ide tool (I love IntelliJ like the >> next person, but appreciate it is a commercial tool I have to pay for for >> all the bells and whistles) >> >> Rgds >> Mike >> >>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 17:03, Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Pavel, >>> >>> How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches >> to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who want to >> ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the >> pull-requests automatically? >>> >>> Cos, Raul, Others, >>> >>> How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience, are >> there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for >> review process? >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>> >>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Igniters, >>>> >>>> We have set up Upsource code review tool at >>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ >>>> >>>> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us. >>>> >>>> >>>> * Why? >>>> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a >>>> review tool will probably agree: >>>> >>>> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work. >> You >>>> can see the code in one click. >>>> - All current reviews are easily accessible >>>> - Multiple reviewers >>>> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point >> can >>>> be discussed and accepted separately >>>> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the >>>> reviews there without opening the browser at all >>>> >>>> >>>> * Why Upsource? >>>> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard, >>>> Phabricator, Crucible), >>>> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us: >>>> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can >> be >>>> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more >>>> commits (fix review issues) >>>> - Good Java support and IDEA integration >>>> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really >>>> struggle with it) >>>> >>>> >>>> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Pavel >>> >>
