Inline
--
Jeff Jirsa
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 8:38 PM, kurt greaves wrote:
>
> It would definitely be nice if PR's were made against the actual repo.
> Makes commenting/reviewing code a lot easier. I'd say as long as PR's are
> kept permanently (after closing) so we can go back and look over
>
It would definitely be nice if PR's were made against the actual repo.
Makes commenting/reviewing code a lot easier. I'd say as long as PR's are
kept permanently (after closing) so we can go back and look over
comments/patches would be a big plus. Not a fan of going through JIRA
tickets and finding
> There's also no way for us to label, assign or otherwise use PR related
> features, so I'm really wondering why it would make sense to more
> heavily using them.
Apache does now offer the GitBox service. This makes the github repository
writable. The asf and github repos are kept in sync, rat
There's nothing that stops people from using github to discuss code
changes. Many jiras already link to gh branches that can be used to
review and comment code. But it's not always the best place to do so.
The high level discussion should always take place on Jira. Although I'd
have no problem to
To be able to use the github code review UI and closer CI integration we
should make it obligatory to submit github pull requests for all code
changes.
The process would be:
1. Create or find a JIRA ticket
2. Submit GH pull request
- one PR per branch (one for 3.0, one for 3.11 etc)
- th
