Yeah, sounds good! Maybe we can say that for new patches reviews, please use PR process in the contributing wiki as well? Or it is somewhere I missed it.....
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > There's always a plan! > > The contributor page only lists github as a valid contribution method. > > Theoretically the committers / reviewers should start asking contributors > who upload patches to send PRs instead and point them at the contributors > page ( > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes > ). > > Patches that are "in flight" will continue in their current trajectory > (i.e. we won't ask anyone in review process to move to github PR). > > Once all "in flight" patches are either committed or rejected (expect a > month or two), we'll remove all trace of the old process from the wiki and > remove the tool from our trunk. > > Sounds good? > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Jiangjie Qin <j...@linkedin.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Thanks Gwen, it is much cleaner now :) > > Just wondering do we have any plan of deprecating the patch review tool? > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Just FYI: > > > > > > I heavily refactored the Patch Review wiki page ( > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Patch+Review+Tool). > > > > > > I removed everything that duplicated (or contradicted) the contributor > > page > > > ( > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes > > > ), > > > so there is now a single source of truth on how to contribute code > > changes. > > > > > > I also moved different tool documentations to separate pages, to make > the > > > Patch Review page both easier to read, and to make transition to github > > > pull requests easier. > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > >
