Many thanks to Ivan, we moved the Trello board from using
puppet-webhooks to his new ossistant project today. It's using the same
OpenShift instance as the Katello one, as the project can handle
multiple configurations.
I've configured all 'theforeman' repos with hooks and have also set a
new label for plugins/engines on the board.
If you review a PR, please just move the cards around so we know roughly
what's waiting on us and what's waiting on the contributor etc. Thanks.
Why do we use trello for PR tracking in the first place? I was PTO when
this was implemented.
Why we don't just put a comment like "taking for review" in the PR
itself?
I don't really see the benefit there.
LZ
···
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:33:47PM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> Many thanks to Ivan, we moved the Trello board from using
> puppet-webhooks to his new ossistant project today. It's using the same
> OpenShift instance as the Katello one, as the project can handle
> multiple configurations.
>
> https://trello.com/b/zZwddYP0/foreman-contributions
> https://github.com/iNecas/ossistant
>
> I've configured all 'theforeman' repos with hooks and have also set a
> new label for plugins/engines on the board.
>
> If you review a PR, please just move the cards around so we know roughly
> what's waiting on us and what's waiting on the contributor etc. Thanks.
>
> --
> Dominic Cleal
> Red Hat Engineering
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
I find it useful to sort through PRs that are waiting on us versus
waiting on the contributor to make some change, else I find it a bit
overwhelming.
Feel free to ignore it
···
On 22/07/13 09:54, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> Why do we use trello for PR tracking in the first place? I was PTO when
> this was implemented.
>
> Why we don't just put a comment like "taking for review" in the PR
> itself?
>
> I don't really see the benefit there.