On 2016-10-16 at 02:04 +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> Which review-tool do you suggest Michael? Any other alternatives that are
> better? Don't tell me email :-)
Well, for no tool/vehicle is perfect, each sucks in some respect.
Quite frankly, of the few I have seen so far, email just
Which review-tool do you suggest Michael? Any other alternatives that are
better? Don't tell me email :-)
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2016-10-14 at 11:44 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> >
On 2016-10-14 at 11:44 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> > I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us to
> > fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the
> > data from the commit
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
>> I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us to
>> fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the
>> data
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:44:02PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> How do we get the following tags in the commit message?
>
> > Smoke: Gluster Build System
> > NetBSD-regression: NetBSD Build System
> > CentOS-regression:
How do we get the following tags in the commit message?
> Smoke: Gluster Build System
> NetBSD-regression: NetBSD Build System
> CentOS-regression: Gluster Build System
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:14
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us to
> fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the
> data from the commit message is folly.
Eventhough we all seem to agree that
I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us to
fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the
data from the commit message is folly.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:01:43PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Michael Adam wrote:
>
> > On 2016-10-05 at 09:45 -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > > "Feedback-given-by: "
> >
>
> Niels/Nigel,
>Is this easier
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2016-10-05 at 09:45 -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > "Feedback-given-by: "
>
Niels/Nigel,
Is this easier to do?
>
> I like that one - thanks! :-)
>
> Michael
>
> > - Original Message
On 2016-10-05 at 09:45 -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> "Feedback-given-by: "
I like that one - thanks! :-)
Michael
> - Original Message -
> > On 2016-09-30 at 17:52 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:50:12PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > >
"Feedback-given-by: "
Cheers,
-Ira
- Original Message -
> On 2016-09-30 at 17:52 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:50:12PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > > On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at
"Feedback-given-by: "
Cheers,
-IRa
- Original Message -
> On 2016-09-30 at 17:52 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:50:12PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > > On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at
On 2016-09-30 at 17:52 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:50:12PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> ...
> > > Maybe we can add an additional tag that
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
> If you get credit for +1, shouldn't you also get credit for -1? It seems
> to me that catching a fault is at least as valuable if not more so.
>
Yes when I said review it could be either +1/-1/+2
>
> On October 3,
If you get credit for +1, shouldn't you also get credit for -1? It seems to me
that catching a fault is at least as valuable if not more so.
On October 3, 2016 3:58:32 AM GMT+02:00, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Ravishankar N
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Ravishankar N
wrote:
> On 10/03/2016 06:58 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
> pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ravishankar N
On 10/03/2016 06:58 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ravishankar N
> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ravishankar N
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ravishankar N
wrote:
> On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
> hi,
> At the moment 'Reviewed-by' tag comes only if a +1 is given on the
> final
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:50:12PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
...
> > Maybe we can add an additional tag that mentions all the people that
> > did do reviews of older
On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
hi,
At the moment 'Reviewed-by' tag comes only if a +1 is given on the
final version of the patch. But for most of the patches, different people
would spend time on
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> hi,
> At the moment 'Reviewed-by' tag comes only if a +1 is given on the
> final version of the patch. But for most of the patches, different people
> would spend time on different versions making the patch better,
If you want it to happen automatically, it's next to impossible. We'll need
to fork Gerrit to make those changes.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Manikandan Selvaganesh <
manikandancs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, Pranith. I prefer adding everyone's name(who reviewed any patch set
> despite the
+1, Pranith. I prefer adding everyone's name(who reviewed any patch set
despite the latest patch set) in the 'Reviewed-by' tag.
On Sep 30, 2016 6:02 PM, "Pranith Kumar Karampuri"
wrote:
> hi,
> At the moment 'Reviewed-by' tag comes only if a +1 is given on the
> final
25 matches
Mail list logo