Does gerrit work well with TravisCI, or will we need to develop/setup another continuous integration solution?
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Robinson <danrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote: > Admittedly, coming from the complete opposite end of the commit-size > spectrum, the JIRA issue + GitHub pull request workflow already feels a > little frictional for simple bugfixes and additions, so I was wary of Gerrit. > But it actually looks pretty well-suited to small commits. > One advantage I'd see to different platforms, though, would be the potential > for JIRA integration. GitHub seems to have a more built-in solution for this, > if it's something you could foresee setting up. But there seem to be ways to > do it with Gerrit too. > Clearly having an option to use GitHub pull requests lowers the barriers to > entry for contributors, but I understand easy pull requests are a > double-edged sword for maintainers! > > > > _____________________________ > From: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:46 AM > Subject: Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches > To: <dev@arrow.apache.org> > > > I'm also on board with this if it doesn't deter new contributors (it's > a bit of additional process over GitHub but overall not too hard to > learn). > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: >> I dont know about the other pmc members and committers but I prefer just >> making Gerrit the only way to submit patches rather than one of many. It >> seems to work well for Asterix and Kudu. > > > >
