yes, i agree, and ~30 lines does sound like a good threshold. we
should update the wikis. the initial dialog box was a bit daunting the
first time since i couldn't figured out what they meant by base
directory and then i couldn't figure out how i should name it.
documenting the policy, procedures, and conventions would make it much
easier all the way around.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Thomas Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as Camille suggested, I've used ReviewBoard in the last weeks for a couple
> of issues. I believe it's a very good tool and helps a lot. Actually I ask
> myself, how one can do an effective code review without such a tool? It's kind
> of time-consuming to download the patch file, inspect it in an editor and post
> comments to jira, copy and pasting code lines or typing line numbers.
> What do you think? Would it be good to strongly encourage the use of
> ReviewBoard for every change whose patch file is longer then ~30 lines? I also
> think, that the current process of using ReviewBoard is time-consuming. But if
> that should be the reason to reject a review tool, then you might have a look
> to my suggestion of using Gerrit at the ASF.
> I scanned the wiki and didn't find ReviewBoard mentioned. ZOOKEEPER-1172
> is an example of an (I believe) new contributor, who didn't know about
> ReviewBoard and also didn't correctly fill the ReviewRequest. I believe that
> the review process could become easier for the committers, if people would
> default to open review requests.
>  http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.zookeeper.devel/10095
>  http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.infrastructure.devel/1361
>  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute
>  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/Committing+changes
> Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro