Github Reviews vs Reviewboard

[Menno Smits]

-1

I was really excited by Github Reviews initially but after using it for a
while I've switched my position.

On 14 October 2016 at 11:44, Menno Smits <menno.smits at canonical.com> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20161014/d6710202/attachment-0001.html>