(Though honestly if we were okay with hosting by Google, Rietveld would still be an option. But I agree we should first figure out whether we can live with GitHub's review.)
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Rietveld is no longer an option as our fork of the project is unmaintained (it was one of the key reasons we even started this process).
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, 10:28 Stefan Krah email@example.com wrote:
Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@...> writes:
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.
Agreed. Our current Rietveld setup is superior and much less distracting.
Like the Rietveld house vs. Victorian architecture.
Stefan Krah _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
core-workflow mailing list email@example.com https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct