[core-workflow] We will be moving to GitHub

[Guido van Rossum]

(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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at ...> 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 at 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 at 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20160103/8bb3c63f/attachment.html>