On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Kluge <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Nalley [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 2:20 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Patches review >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > +1 gerrit, particularly as it helps avoid additional process >> > +mismatches for >> > folks working in both openstack and cloudstack >> >> So while I like the thinking here, let me present the flip side of the coin. >> Reviewboard is what is used in a large number of other ASF projects, so >> getting reviewboard up and running is just a ticket. Whereas gerrit would >> mean we would need to have a set of committers maintain that >> infrastructure. Not necessarily a blocker, but something else to consider. >> This >> also means we could likely get reviewboard up in short order, while gerrit >> could potentially take longer as we have to both do the work, and wait for >> allocation of resources. > > If that's the case can we default to ReviewBoard, and choose something else > only if there is strong objection? > > Does anyone have anything +/- to say from actual use of ReviewBoard? > > -kevin > >
I think it's low 'cost' to try it out. If no one objects in the next day or so I'll request that we get CloudStack instance in reviewboard, and we can try using it for a week or two and see if that is to our liking. If there are specific problems that we find from a workflow perspective that would be solved by Gerrit, we'll be in a better place to decide. (I see no problem with iteration here, as long as we recognize failure early on and then do something different) --David
