I would be in favor of requiring RB for any/all changes, regardless of size. We do this at Cloudera religiously, I find it's a good practice and it eliminates any guesswork.
We also use rbtools (specifically post-review.py), which greatly simplifies the process of posting a review. http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/ Patrick On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Thomas Koch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > as Camille suggested[1], I've used ReviewBoard in the last weeks for a couple > of issues. I believe it's a very good tool and helps a lot. Actually I ask > myself, how one can do an effective code review without such a tool? It's kind > of time-consuming to download the patch file, inspect it in an editor and post > comments to jira, copy and pasting code lines or typing line numbers. > > What do you think? Would it be good to strongly encourage the use of > ReviewBoard for every change whose patch file is longer then ~30 lines? I also > think, that the current process of using ReviewBoard is time-consuming. But if > that should be the reason to reject a review tool, then you might have a look > to my suggestion of using Gerrit at the ASF[2]. > > I scanned the wiki[3][4] and didn't find ReviewBoard mentioned. ZOOKEEPER-1172 > is an example of an (I believe) new contributor, who didn't know about > ReviewBoard and also didn't correctly fill the ReviewRequest. I believe that > the review process could become easier for the committers, if people would > default to open review requests. > > [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.zookeeper.devel/10095 > [2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.infrastructure.devel/1361 > [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute > [4] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/Committing+changes > > Regards, > > Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro >
