The votes are in: Github 8, Reviewboard 5. It looks like we stick with
Github Reviews.
I'm going to email some people now about tearing down the Reviewboard
instance.
On 15 October 2016 at 06:57, Casey Marshall
wrote:
> +1, as I work on many other Github projects besides Juju and it's
> familia
Shouldn't we leave it for historic purposes?
On Monday, 24 October 2016, Menno Smits wrote:
> The votes are in: Github 8, Reviewboard 5. It looks like we stick with
> Github Reviews.
>
> I'm going to email some people now about tearing down the Reviewboard
> instance.
>
> On 15 October 2016 at 0
On 25 October 2016 at 10:17, Horacio Duran
wrote:
> Shouldn't we leave it for historic purposes?
>
>
Will it really get used? My bet is that the project's commit history will
be enough.
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.
On 24 October 2016 at 22:22, Menno Smits wrote:
> On 25 October 2016 at 10:17, Horacio Duran
> wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't we leave it for historic purposes?
>>
>
> Will it really get used? My bet is that the project's commit history will be
> enough.
I think that review history is crucial for contex
roger peppe writes:
> I think that review history is crucial for context on historic
> code decisions
I wonder if we could hack a script to save the reviews as git notes, e.g.
https://github.com/google/git-appraise
With git's ability to rewrite history, I bet this is doable...
--
Katherine
On 25 October 2016 at 10:55, Katherine Cox-Buday <
katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote:
> roger peppe writes:
>
> > I think that review history is crucial for context on historic
> > code decisions
>
> I wonder if we could hack a script to save the reviews as git notes, e.g.
> https://github
