[core-workflow] We will be moving to GitHub

[Nick Coghlan]

On 4 January 2016 at 03:35, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 at 20:39 Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> First, let me add my thanks for sorting this out!
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2016 11:45, "Brett Cannon" <brett at python.org> 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.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia