I disagree, once the discussion is over and the merge is ready, an amend/squash is in order to avoid useless tree nodes.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Reed O'Brien <reed.obr...@canonical.com> wrote: > Two things I've noticed today while doing OCR duties are: > 1. There's no way to tell if a PR has a review when looking at the list of > open PRs. I may be missing something or it may be an oversight on the part > of GH and will likely be remedied soon. When there are comments it shows > little comment clouds and a count, but not if there's only a review nothing > shows there for me. > 2. When someone amends a commit and force pushes, the review remains but > isn't attached to a commit any longer. You can see that there was an update > because the commit appears later in the timeline than the review on the PR > details view. Personally, I think that once you make a PR and involve > someone else we shouldn't rewrite history anymore. > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Andrew Wilkins < > andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:53 AM Menno Smits <menno.sm...@canonical.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Some of us probably got a little excited (me included). There should be >>> discussion and a clear announcement before we make a signigicant change to >>> our process. The tech board meeting is today/tonight so we'll discuss it >>> there as per Rick's email. Please contribute to this thread if you haven't >>> already and have strong opinions either way on the topic. >>> >> >> We discussed Github reviews vs. Reviewboard at the tech board meeting >> today, and we all agreed that we should go ahead with a trial for 2 weeks. >> >> There are pros and cons to each; neither is perfect. You can find the >> main points of discussion in the tech board agenda. >> >> Please give it a shot and provide your criticisms so we decide on the >> best path forward at the end of the trial. >> >> Cheers, >> Andrew >> >> Interestingly our Github/RB integration seems to have broken a little >>> since Github made these changes. The links to Reviewboard on pull requests >>> aren't getting inserted any more. If we decide to stay with RB >>> >>> On 21 September 2016 at 05:54, Rick Harding <rick.hard...@canonical.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I spoke with Alexis today about this and it's on her list to check with >>>> her folks on this. The tech board has been tasked with he decision, so >>>> please feel free to shoot a copy of your opinions their way. As you say, on >>>> the one hand it's a big impact on the team, but it's also a standard >>>> developer practice that not everyone will agree with so I'm sure the tech >>>> board is a good solution to limiting the amount of bike-shedding and to >>>> have some multi-mind consensus. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM Katherine Cox-Buday < >>>> katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Seems like a good thing to do would be to ensure the tech board >>>>> doesn't have any objections and then put it to a vote since it's more a >>>>> property of the team and not the codebase. >>>>> >>>>> I just want some consistency until a decision is made. E.g. "we will >>>>> be trying out GitHub reviews for the next two weeks; all reviews should be >>>>> done on there". >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Katherine >>>>> >>>>> Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> > Can we try reviews on github for a couple weeks? Seems like we'll >>>>> > never know if it's sufficient if we don't try it. And there's no >>>>> setup >>>>> > cost, which is nice. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM Katherine Cox-Buday >>>>> > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I see quite a few PRs that are being reviewed in GitHub and not >>>>> > ReviewBoard. I really don't care where we do them, but can we >>>>> > please pick a direction and move forward? And until then, can we >>>>> > stick to our previous decision and use RB? With people using both >>>>> > it's much more difficult to tell what's been reviewed and what >>>>> > hasn't. >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Katherine >>>>> > >>>>> > Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> writes: >>>>> > >>>>> > > In case you missed it, Github rolled out a new review process. >>>>> > It >>>>> > > basically works just like reviewboard does, where you start a >>>>> > review, >>>>> > > batch up comments, then post the review as a whole, so you >>>>> don't >>>>> > just >>>>> > > write a bunch of disconnected comments (and get one email per >>>>> > review, >>>>> > > not per comment). The only features reviewboard has is the edge >>>>> > case >>>>> > > stuff that we rarely use: like using rbt to post a review from >>>>> a >>>>> > > random diff that is not connected directly to a github PR. I >>>>> > think >>>>> > > that is easy enough to give up in order to get the benefit of >>>>> > not >>>>> > > needing an entirely separate system to handle reviews. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I made a little test review on one PR here, and the UX was >>>>> > almost >>>>> > > exactly like working in reviewboard: >>>>> > > https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6234 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > There may be important edge cases I'm missing, but I think it's >>>>> > worth >>>>> > > looking into. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -Nate >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Juju-dev mailing list >>>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm >>>>> an/listinfo/juju-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Juju-dev mailing list >>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm >>>> an/listinfo/juju-dev >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Juju-dev mailing list >>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm >>> an/listinfo/juju-dev >>> >> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm >> an/listinfo/juju-dev >> >> > > > -- > Reed O'Brien > ✉ reed.obr...@canonical.com > ✆ 415-562-6797 > > > -- > 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
