We can always set up a bit of automation so that committers are notified if a PR sits unattended for a period of time.
--Jens On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 0 for PR - I feel that both have their benefits and downsides. > > * +1 for PR: As Naba stated, the integration is simplified and using > Intellij there is even support to create a PR. Single system to rule > them all. > * -1 for PR: I fear that given the huge amount of incoming PR's we > might loose sight/oversight of any PR's that need to be approved > from external submitters. It is impossible for external submitters > to know who needs to be mentioned in order to have the PR looked at. > With the Reviewboard + Apache Geode PR system, those can be kept > separate and some oversight is possible. > > > > On 6/12/17 11:13, Nabarun Nag wrote: > >> +1 On using PR. I feel using github PR is more convenient because of the >> following reasons >> a. Commit messages are automatically made into the header and >> description >> in PR, whereas in reviewboard, you upload the patch and do all the writing >> - manually. It feels redundant. >> b. After changing the code as per some review comments, we need to >> upload >> the new patch back to reviewboard but in case of a PR we just need to do >> a >> git push. >> c. A single system for review for all types of contributors - committers >> and non committers. >> d. Travis CI runs on the PR - detects missed out spotlessApply or merge >> issues. >> e. Also in case someone is AFK for a long time, one can request a fellow >> committer to merge the PR without losing commit credit. >> >> >> >> After some google search, I could see that a lot of projects are moving to >> Github PR system over Review Board. Apache Spark, Apache CloudStack , >> Apache SystemML are a few examples. >> Regards >> Nabarun >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:37 AM Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> +0 >>> Proposal as written says "...for changes that would require peer review >>> before committing...". >>> If this means that minor changes (in my case, typo repairs are the common >>> case) can be checked in without going through a PR process, I can go with >>> the group decision. >>> Still see no compelling need to retire the Review Board, which (as >>> pointed >>> out in the discussion thread) has its uses and advantages. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Bruce Schuchardt < >>> bschucha...@pivotal.io> >>> wrote: >>> >>> -1 >>>> >>>> It places an unnecessary burden on committers and git history is the >>>> definitive record of changes to the code so github pr history isn't >>>> >>> really >>> >>>> very useful. Also, Review Board is a much better tool for reviewing >>>> code >>>> than a github PR. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/11/17 9:51 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote: >>>> >>>> After a few days of discussion [1] this thread has quieted down so I >>>>> >>>> would >>> >>>> like to take it to a vote. The proposal is to modify the workflow of >>>>> committers to match that of non-committers such that committers shall: >>>>> >>>>> * Perform all work in progress on branches in their personal forks on >>>>> GitHub rather than directly on the ASF Geode repositories. >>>>> >>>>> * Submit GitHub pull requests, following all current rules for pull >>>>> requests, for changes that would require peer review before committing >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>>> the production branches. >>>>> >>>>> * Register their GitHub accounts with the ASF so that committers can be >>>>> identified in the GitHub mirror repositories. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please cast your vote. >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Approve >>>>> [ ] +0 No opinion >>>>> [ ] -1 Disapprove (and reason why) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] [DISCUSS] Using Pull Requests over Review Board >>>>> <http://geode.markmail.org/message/row5hgz5zw2ooadl?q=list: >>>>> org%2Eapache%2Egeode%2Edev+discuss+pull> >>>>> >>>>> -Jake >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
