On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:01:18AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 09.06.15 14:54, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lennart Poettering > > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) > > > wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering > > >> <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > >> > [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one. > > >> > > >> See my previous comment, I think this "cure" is worse than the > > >> "disease" :-) > > > > > > Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old > > > obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad? > > > > - Too much administrivia > > Yes, I with this was easier to do. But I figure it's OK to do if you > have the git shell helper stuff in place. > > > - Threads get split up (did I comment on the origina PR or on this > > one?) > > Yeah, it generally requires a regime for everybody to stick to code > disccusions in the PR comments, and conceptional discussions in the > issue comments. Also, when we obsolete a PR we should "lock" it to > ensure people stop commenting there. > > > - Hard to follow the references around > > Yupp. > > > I actually think the fact that in GitHub you'll use a PR *or* and > > Issue is actually good, so you mainly have a single thread to discuss > > the same item... > > Well, but it's really weird... If you start out with a patch things > are tracked as PR. If you start out without a patch things are tracked > as an issue. And they have quite different workflows, as PRs cannot be > reopened and issues can, for example. > > I am pretty sure issues should be at the core of things... > > WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot > be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this > must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually > prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really > grokked the github way of doing things yet.
If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit? I know it was suggested before and that some people hate it for not being as simple as any git server, but same people were already talking about shell scripts or bots to open issue in bug tracker for each PR, just to keep PR linked together. I didn't like gerrit at first, but after using it for few years, I really hate doing the review in Github, Stash or ReviewBoard. I don't want to do side-by-side comparison between to PRs opened in separate tabs, just because the tool doesn't know that it's actually the same "change" and that comments on older PR should be resolved in newer one and I want to see how - that's in my POV the whole point of review process. FWIW: biggest pains in gerrit UI were also fixed/improved in newer versions, so if someone hated it in -2.4 version, please give 2.10+ a try. Regards, _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
