-1 On 14 October 2016 at 02:47, Tim Penhey <tim.pen...@canonical.com> wrote: > -1, like Menno I was initially quite hopeful for the github reviews. > > My main concerns are around easily having a list to pull from, and being > able to see status, comments on a single dashboard. > > Tim > > On 14/10/16 11:44, Menno Smits wrote: >> >> We've been trialling Github Reviews for some time now and it's time to >> decide whether we stick with it or go back to Reviewboard. >> >> We're going to have a vote. If you have an opinion on the issue please >> reply to this email with a +1, 0 or -1, optionally followed by any >> further thoughts. >> >> * +1 means you prefer Github Reviews >> * -1 means you prefer Reviewboard >> * 0 means you don't mind. >> >> If you don't mind which review system we use there's no need to reply >> unless you want to voice some opinions. >> >> The voting period starts *now* and ends my*EOD next Friday (October 21)*. >> >> As a refresher, here are the concerns raised for each option. >> >> *Github Reviews* >> >> * Comments disrupt the flow of the code and can't be minimised, >> hindering readability. >> * Comments can't be marked as done making it hard to see what's still >> to be taken care of. >> * There's no way to distinguish between a problem and a comment. >> * There's no summary of issues raised. You need to scroll through the >> often busy discussion page. >> * There's no indication of which PRs have been reviewed from the pull >> request index page nor is it possible to see which PRs have been >> approved or otherwise. >> * It's hard to see when a review has been updated. >> >> *Reviewboard* >> >> * Another piece of infrastructure for us to maintain >> * Higher barrier to entry for newcomers and outside contributors >> * Occasionally misses Github pull requests (likely a problem with our >> integration so is fixable) >> * Poor handling of deleted and renamed files >> * Falls over with very large diffs >> * 1990's looks :) >> * May make future integration of tools which work with Github into our >> process more difficult (e.g. static analysis or automated review >> tools) >> >> There has been talk of evaluating other review tools such as Gerrit and >> that may still happen. For now, let's decide between the two options we >> have recent experience with. >> >> - Menno >> >> > > -- > 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
