Not sure I get a vote, but -1 You're running an old version of ReviewBoard (2.0.12 released in January 2015) and many of the issues I think you've been hitting are fixed in later revisions. Latest stable is 2.5.6.1, 3.0.x is under active development and brings a chunk of new UI improvements.
Release notes for 2.5 <https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/releasenotes/reviewboard/2.5/> 3.0 demo site <http://demo.reviewboard.org> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 at 12:34 Michael Foord <michael.fo...@canonical.com> wrote: > 0 > > On 13/10/16 23:44, 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