Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this.
So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too. mue On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe <roger.pe...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney <david.che...@canonical.com> > wrote: > > There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review > > comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to > > chained proposals. > > > > I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with > > the first issue > > > > On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs. > > > > On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own > > devices to implement chained proposals. > > > > I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's > > paying it's way. > > The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's > a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look > at new changes in the context of old comments, to see > where and how those comments have been addressed. > > So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a > bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very > good point about keeping things mainstream. > > I guess there's the potential for some third party tool > to address my issue above. > > So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace > github, even if it is awkward in some ways. > > cheers, > rog. > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek <jesse.m...@canonical.com> > wrote: > >> We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors > outside > >> the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software. > >> This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most > mindshare > >> and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that > >> mindshare. > >> > >> We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits > the > >> tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new > contributors > >> (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred > >> methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside > >> contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we > simply > >> return to that. > >> > >> Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months > now, > >> using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with > whatever the > >> team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard > without > >> considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason > for > >> using GitHub. > >> > >> Jess > >> > >> -- > >> Juju-dev mailing list > >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > > > -- > > Juju-dev mailing list > > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > -- ** Frank Mueller <frank.muel...@canonical.com> ** Software Engineer - Juju Development ** Canonical
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
