I have to agree with Bruce here. This is an open community, and as such, dictating whether or not we can use reviewboard for reviews works against the openness. Furthermore, reviewboard is NOT restricted to committers - I submitted many reviews using RB before becoming a committer. Once the reviews were completed satisfactorily it was a simple matter to do a single push to my GitHub fork and create a PR. My reviewers were familiar with the changes and pulled in my PR.
I personally feel RB offers better tools for doing a review than PR’s through GitHub. Others obviously lean the other way. > On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Having to deal with a github repo instead of branches off of the Apache repo > is an additional burden on committers. > > I still vote -1 and don't see a lot of support for this idea. > > > On 6/13/17 3:03 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:57 AM Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >> >>> It places an unnecessary burden on committers >> >> Considering committers need to use PR to commit changes from non-committers >> how does reducing the number of review systems increase the burden on >> committers? >> >> >>> and git history is the >>> definitive record of changes to the code so github pr history isn't >>> really very useful. >> >> All unsquashed commit history is preserved through a PR. >> >
