(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 <brett@python.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 <skrah.temporarily@gmail.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
core-workflow@python.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
core-workflow@python.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



--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)