Reviews on Github
Katherine Cox-Buday
katherine.cox-buday at canonical.com
Tue Sep 20 17:52:09 UTC 2016
Seems like a good thing to do would be to ensure the tech board doesn't have any objections and then put it to a vote since it's more a property of the team and not the codebase.
I just want some consistency until a decision is made. E.g. "we will be trying out GitHub reviews for the next two weeks; all reviews should be done on there".
--
Katherine
Nate Finch <nate.finch at canonical.com> writes:
> Can we try reviews on github for a couple weeks? Seems like we'll
> never know if it's sufficient if we don't try it. And there's no setup
> cost, which is nice.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM Katherine Cox-Buday
> <katherine.cox-buday at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> I see quite a few PRs that are being reviewed in GitHub and not
> ReviewBoard. I really don't care where we do them, but can we
> please pick a direction and move forward? And until then, can we
> stick to our previous decision and use RB? With people using both
> it's much more difficult to tell what's been reviewed and what
> hasn't.
>
> --
> Katherine
>
> Nate Finch <nate.finch at canonical.com> writes:
>
> > In case you missed it, Github rolled out a new review process.
> It
> > basically works just like reviewboard does, where you start a
> review,
> > batch up comments, then post the review as a whole, so you don't
> just
> > write a bunch of disconnected comments (and get one email per
> review,
> > not per comment). The only features reviewboard has is the edge
> case
> > stuff that we rarely use: like using rbt to post a review from a
> > random diff that is not connected directly to a github PR. I
> think
> > that is easy enough to give up in order to get the benefit of
> not
> > needing an entirely separate system to handle reviews.
> >
> > I made a little test review on one PR here, and the UX was
> almost
> > exactly like working in reviewboard:
> > https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6234
> >
> > There may be important edge cases I'm missing, but I think it's
> worth
> > looking into.
> >
> > -Nate
More information about the Juju-dev
mailing list