+1 I expect there will be updates and improvements to GH reviews over time. e.g. the 'show notes' checkbox to hide the notes when looking at the changes. I don't recall seeing that last week. I think gitlab's funding and cadence if putting pressure on GH to improve their UI and feature set.
They are just tools. Neither is perfect, but I find GH to be less problematic and less bumpy in my general work flow. I've lost work in RB more than a few times, which is not an experience I've had with GH. I find the diffs in RB inscrutable at times and have had go to look a them in GH. I'd be happy to try gerrit. I haven't used it, but everyone I've spoken with who has reported a positive experience. I'd also be happy to try gitlab, but that is another, enormous, can of worms. On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Ian Booth <ian.bo...@canonical.com> wrote: > -10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 :-) > > On 14/10/16 08:44, 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 > -- 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
