On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Dave Cahill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since it appears there is consensus in this thread for at least setting up
> Gerrit (if not for mandating a certain number of +1 reviews), what is the
> next step?
>
>> This is also a _dramatic_ change in culture - moving from a commit
Hi,
Since it appears there is consensus in this thread for at least setting up
Gerrit (if not for mandating a certain number of +1 reviews), what is the
next step?
> This is also a _dramatic_ change in culture - moving from a commit
> then review to a review then commit - this will dramatically s
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:13:11PM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> One thing I've seen is that almost all
> reviews in OS come in with tests and without passing the devstack
> tests (also integrated in gerrit) the patch isn't even picked up by
> committers for code review.
This is a practice
Enough of this coder-mance. Bang out the reviews already!!! :p
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:37:43AM +0530, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/14/13 1:43 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Personally I'm okay with eith
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:37:43AM +0530, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>
>
> On 2/14/13 1:43 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>
> >
> >Personally I'm okay with either tool. IMO the real issue is in people
> >reviewing a patch within time for a release. On the review I've cited
> >we've got a lot of t
On 2/14/13 1:43 AM, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote:
>
>Personally I'm okay with either tool. IMO the real issue is in people
>reviewing a patch within time for a release. On the review I've cited
>we've got a lot of things to learn from -
>
>a) timely response from blueprint (FS) owners and/or aski
Some folks on this list have actually gone through the rigor of the
gerrit workflow on the OS lists [1] and can probably note the positive
and negative experiences. One thing I've seen is that almost all
reviews in OS come in with tests and without passing the devstack
tests (also integrated in ger
I recommend anyone for or against code review read this post by a
Mozilla dev written on 18 Jan 2013.
"One of the discussions happening right now in the Mozilla Foundation
software team is whether mandatory code reviews are a good thing.
I’ve had versions of this conversation a number of times in
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:28:50PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> I would say let's bring in the tool and use it in place of review
> board the same way, if not otherwise. Let's have the tool anyway, if
> not us I bet there may be other projects who may use it.
>
> Regards.
I'm with Rohit on this on
I would say let's bring in the tool and use it in place of review
board the same way, if not otherwise. Let's have the tool anyway, if
not us I bet there may be other projects who may use it.
Regards.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 04:31 PM, John
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 04:31 PM, John Kinsella wrote:
> -1 for reasons listed by others. I think Gerrit's great, and I like the
> idea of peer code reviews, but my gut feel is this doesn't gel well with
> an open source project (happy to review examples where it's being used…)
So, I'm not arguing
Call me ignorant since I've never really used Gerrit. Someone just brought
it to my attention once. Initially I just liked it because it seemed like a
nice tool for collaborating (commenting) on code rather than using it for
review policy enforcement. I understand as a matter of policy, code review
-1 for reasons listed by others. I think Gerrit's great, and I like the idea of
peer code reviews, but my gut feel is this doesn't gel well with an open source
project (happy to review examples where it's being used…)
Coud we maybe enable gerrit for specific pieces of code? e.g. we should
proba
efore coming
to any final decision , we should consider both sides of the coin.
Regards,
Pranav
From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:htrippa...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:03 PM
To: Rohit Yadav; David Nalley
Cc: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE:
stack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][INFRA] Setting up gerrit
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:21 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I like to propose that we setup gerrit as the review mechanism. Here are m
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:21 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I like to propose that we setup gerrit as the review mechanism. Here are my
>> reasons
>>
>> - Committer status in Apache is a reflection of one's commitment to the
>>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I like to propose that we setup gerrit as the review mechanism. Here are my
> reasons
>
> - Committer status in Apache is a reflection of one's commitment to the
> community, not a reflection of understanding of code. So to m
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:09 AM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][INFRA] Setting up gerrit
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 a
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:06:37AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I like to propose that we setup gerrit as the review mechanism. Here are my
> reasons
>
> - Committer status in Apache is a reflection of one's commitment to the
> community, not a reflection of understanding of cod
Hi everyone,
I like to propose that we setup gerrit as the review mechanism. Here are my
reasons
- Committer status in Apache is a reflection of one's commitment to the
community, not a reflection of understanding of code. So to me just because
you have committer status shouldn't mean code d
20 matches
Mail list logo
