<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"> <html><body> <p>Hey guys.</p> <p>Long time lurker with the occasional suggestion.</p> <p>I have an idea for something that might be beneficial to the project as a whole. Has it been considered about custom coding a review system that will interface with github hooks and provide what is needed to all juju dev's and keep things rather mainstream as well so as not to increase the entry level requirements fore new contributors?</p> <div> <pre>--- Regards, Jonathan Aquilina Founder Eagle Eye T</pre> </div> <p>On 2014-09-19 10:14, Frank Mueller wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%"> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">Right now I'm a bit undecided, the usage of ReviewBoard is too fresh. But Jesse made good points and in general Im always happy when we're using less instead of using more tools. I can live with the number of mails, GMail does grouping them fine. And I started to add my comments after a first pass through a PR. My greatest weakness so far has been the missing side-by-side diff, thankfully GitHub addressed this. <br /><br /></div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">So I'm with Jesse and will go with the team if we decide to use ReviewBoard, but I prefer returning to a GitHub based process as it is know in many other communities too.<br /><br /></div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">mue</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;"> </div> </div> <div class="gmail_extra"><br /> <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, roger peppe <span><<a href="mailto:roger.peppe@canonical.com">roger.peppe@canonical.com</a>></span> wrote:<br /> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="HOEnZb"> <div class="h5">On 19 September 2014 01:32, David Cheney <<a href="mailto:david.cheney@canonical.com">david.cheney@canonical.com</a>> wrote:<br /> > There were three problem reviewboard was supposed to address, review<br /> > comments are sent immediately, no side by side diffs, and no way to to<br /> > chained proposals.<br /> ><br /> > I think that over the last few months we've all learnt to live with<br /> > the first issue<br /> ><br /> > On the second, github now does nice side by side diffs.<br /> ><br /> > On the third, it appears reviewboard leaves you solidly to your own<br /> > devices to implement chained proposals.<br /> ><br /> > I'm with Jesse, I vote to stop using reviewboard, I don't think it's<br /> > paying it's way.<br /><br /> The main thing I was hoping to get from reviewboard that's<br /> a constant pain to me in github was the ability to look<br /> at new changes in the context of old comments, to see<br /> where and how those comments have been addressed.<br /><br /> So, assuming reviewboard did address that issue, I'm a<br /> bit sad but I think Jesse makes a very<br /> good point about keeping things mainstream.<br /><br /> I guess there's the potential for some third party tool<br /> to address my issue above.<br /><br /> So I agree that it might be better to cut losses here and embrace<br /> github, even if it is awkward in some ways.<br /><br /> cheers,<br /> rog.<br /><br /> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jesse Meek <<a href="mailto:jesse.meek@canonical.com">jesse.meek@canonical.com</a>> wrote:<br /> >> We moved to GitHub in the hope of lowering the bar to contributors outside<br /> >> the team. GitHub is *the* platform and process for open source software.<br /> >> This was the logic behind the move. It was deemed to have the most mindshare<br /> >> and we sacrificed our prefered platform and process to be part of that<br /> >> mindshare.<br /> >><br /> >> We are now leaving that 'main stream' process to something that suits the<br /> >> tastes of our team - ReviewBoard. This adds friction for new contributors<br /> >> (friction everyone has experienced this week). If we value our preferred<br /> >> methods of reviewing over keeping to a well known process for outside<br /> >> contributors, the best process was launchpad + rietveld. Shouldn't we simply<br /> >> return to that.<br /> >><br /> >> Considering we have been successfully using GitHub for several months now,<br /> >> using reviewboard is not a necessity. Obviously, I will go with whatever the<br /> >> team decides, but I'm concerned that we have moved to reviewboard without<br /> >> considering that it undermines (as far as I can see) our primary reason for<br /> >> using GitHub.<br /> >><br /> >> Jess<br /> >><br /> >> --<br /> >> Juju-dev mailing list<br /> >> <a href="mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com">Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br /> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:<br /> >> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev</a><br /> ><br /> > --<br /> > Juju-dev mailing list<br /> > <a href="mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com">Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br /> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev</a><br /><br /> --<br /> Juju-dev mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com">Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br /> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev</a></div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br /><br clear="all" /><br />-- <br /> <div>** Frank Mueller <<a href="mailto:frank.mueller@canonical.com">frank.mueller@canonical.com</a>></div> <div>** Software Engineer - Juju Development</div> <div>** Canonical</div> </div> </blockquote> </body></html>