There is still the definite blocker that committers cannot close pull requests: https://github.com/apache/mesos/pulls
benh: Having pull requests become ReviewBoard reviews seems a little odd. The author will need to learn how to use ReviewBoard to continue the process, unless there is some two-way review update mechanism (which sounds way too complex). I would imagine this would create more headache for the author of the patch. A downside of having two places for reviews is that we now have to look at both Github and ReviewBoard to get the full story. Outsiders to the project can easily look at one of these and think they're seeing the full picture if they don't look at the mailing list. Probably not a blocker but it is pretty unfortunate. I would be ok with reviewing small patches on Github for those getting their feet wet, but ultimately I would agree that a single source for significant reviews would be great. There are still some inherent issues with GitHub reviews that make it difficult to review large patches (no side-by-side diffs, 1 email per comment). To play the devil's advocate: Why not use Github 'issues' as well? Why do we ask folks to create reviews when they upload a .patch file to JIRA, why not review the .patch directly in JIRA? The answer is we don't want two issue trackers, three review systems, as there is added project management overhead. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Tim St Clair <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave - > > Spot on! +1 > > Cheers, > Tim > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Lester" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:52:08 PM > > Subject: Re: Mesos & Apache Infra Update w/github > > > > +1 to adopting GitHub as an additional way of accepting Mesos reviews! > > > > We're seeing a variety of contributions to the project (which is great); > > some are large, but many more are quite small -- often for small changes > to > > things like documentation. In these latter cases, GitHub is a natural fit > > and significantly lowers the barrier of entry for contributors so I'm all > > for it -- we'll make great strides in growing our dev community if we can > > simplify this process (which GH does). > > > > I disagree that a single system is necessary for accepting reviews; let's > > meet users where they are instead of forcing them in a single workflow. > The > > history of code that is committed is in the git history and all > > contributions will be in the email archive, so I believe we'll > sufficiently > > achieve a single "source of truth" while making the lives of contributors > > simpler. > > > > Dave > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Benjamin Hindman > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I would like to keep a single "source of truth" for code reviews and > > > comments (beyond, of course, the mailing list). Given our current set > up, > > > ideally this means that we can get github pull requests to become > Review > > > Board reviews. It doesn't look like that was covered in the blog post > and > > > it's not clear if it is even supported. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Sweet. Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7350 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Tim St Clair <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Greetings folks - > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if anyone has noticed the tighter integration with > github > > > > > that has been added: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and > > > > > > > > > > & looked at all whether this can work with ReviewBoard (or if it > could > > > > > deprecate it). > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Tim >
