Re: [eigen] Bugs on bugzilla

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Christoph Hertzberg <chtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess we do need the "ReviewNeeded" status to support bitbucket pull
requests. In that case, I think we should remove the review flag on
bugzilla patches so that we do not have two systems to indicate that a
patch needs review (I do not think that the more specific nature of the
bugzilla system buys a lot).

The patch reviewing system of bitbucket is indeed much better. The downside
is that scatters the discussions but since that's already what's happening,
why not.

What I like more about the bugzilla reviewing system is that it is possible to make per-line comments (or did I just not find this on bitbucket?).

bitbucket's system is even better for that, and you can even edit the patch online.
OTOH, especially for trivial patches, bitbucket pull-requests are much easier to approve/merge.

Further downsides of having two mostly independent systems are that following pull-requests is another thing a person interested in contributing must set-up (I did never checked how to do that, I merely started getting notifications since I got write-access).
Also, we can't make pull-requests block or get blocked by other bugs.
This also means, once we have more open pull-requests we have a similar problem as with open bz-bugs. A workaround would be to make a bz-entry for every (non-trivial) pull-request.

Yes that's definitely an issue. Maybe there exist some nice interoperability plugins. Let me check.... 

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+