On 4 January 2016 at 03:35, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 at 20:39 Eric Snow firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
First, let me add my thanks for sorting this out!
On Jan 2, 2016 11:45, "Brett Cannon" email@example.com wrote:
Well, "support" as in "allow". We won't be keeping Rietveld around (part of this move is so we can get off of Rietveld).
I guess I'd missed this point. In my opinion, code review in Github is unpleasant for anything but small PRs and even for those when there's much back-and-forth. At work we switched to Github. We moved code review off to reviewboard a few months later. Setting up the webhooks between the two wasn't hard and code review was a much better experience. Just my 2c.
No one proposed that workflow so it wasn't considered (and I'm obviously not about to start the process again ;). If we find that GitHub isn't working out for code review then we can discuss how to remedy it, but that's not something to consider until we have been done with the transition for several months at least for people to form an informed opinion.
The useful aspect of the GitHub-as-platform business model in this case is that while PRs are the *default* review workflow, GitHub's APIs are deliberately designed to let people slot in their own review tools.
pip's repo shows what the PR interface looks like with Reviewable enabled, for instance: https://github.com/pypa/pip/pull/3338 (there's just an extra button to jump to the review in the external review tool)
For the OpenStack workflow fans, there's http://gerrithub.io/
I can't find any examples of direct integration of Rietveld with GitHub, so that would presumably require setting up some webhooks, similar to what Eric described doing for Reviewboard.