There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - reviewboard gives us a unified review queue. On github you need to look in 8 places to see all the stuff up for review, and anything not in juju/juju tends to get lost. This is really important since that can have a big effect on our velocity.
I think we should continue using reviewboard until we've had more time to adjust to it. Remember, we were ready to abandon github after the first week, too. I think tooling can solve most of our problems with complicated workflows. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Aquilina <jaquil...@eagleeyet.net> wrote: > Hey guys. > > Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion. > > I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a > whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will > interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's > and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry > level requirements fore new contributors? > > --- > Regards, > Jonathan Aquilina > Founder Eagle Eye T > > On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote: > > 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 > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
