Hi all,
so some time ago Chris proposed to make some code reviews
on GeoServer commits. I still like the idea a lot, and
from my personal perspective, Crucible looks easy and nice,
whilst the Google one seem kind of process heavy.
For reference:
http://www.nabble.com/code-review-tools-td17153080.html
Does anyone else have a preference? Can we start using
some of these tools?
I'm also wondering how these tools might shape our way to
commit. Like, it seems to me they kind of go against
a style of granular commits with a specific msg each,
and more to a single commit that encompasses all the work
needed to fix a bug or create a new feature?
I personally like granular commits when building new features
(whilst I prefer the second style for bug fixes),
wondering if there is any way to group them so that you
can still make up tight messages but submit a group of
commits as a single review subject.
Cheers
Andrea
On Friday 27 June 2008 10:36:50 am Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi all,
so some time ago Chris proposed to make some code reviews
on GeoServer commits. I still like the idea a lot, and
from my personal perspective, Crucible looks easy and nice,
whilst the Google one seem kind of process heavy.
For reference:
http://www.nabble.com/code-review-tools-td17153080.html
Does anyone else have a preference? Can we start using
some of these tools?
I'm also wondering how these tools might shape our way to
commit. Like, it seems to me they kind of go against
a style of granular commits with a specific msg each,
and more to a single commit that encompasses all the work
needed to fix a bug or create a new feature?
I didn't do a deep review of crucible, though still wonder why it should go
against granular commits...
My concerns are now how much overlap will we have regarding jira. Hope they
integrate somehow?
In any case I'd say lets go for crucible, avoid starting a large and boring
thread about different code review tools pros and cons, crucible aligns with
our other tools and we can use it. Lets move on and start doing more
structured code reviews! 
Gabriel
I personally like granular commits when building new features
(whilst I prefer the second style for bug fixes),
wondering if there is any way to group them so that you
can still make up tight messages but submit a group of
commits as a single review subject.
Cheers
Andrea
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
!DSPAM:4045,4864a6b2244255332866982!
Gabriel Roldán ha scritto:
On Friday 27 June 2008 10:36:50 am Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi all,
so some time ago Chris proposed to make some code reviews
on GeoServer commits. I still like the idea a lot, and
from my personal perspective, Crucible looks easy and nice,
whilst the Google one seem kind of process heavy.
For reference:
http://www.nabble.com/code-review-tools-td17153080.html
Does anyone else have a preference? Can we start using
some of these tools?
I'm also wondering how these tools might shape our way to
commit. Like, it seems to me they kind of go against
a style of granular commits with a specific msg each,
and more to a single commit that encompasses all the work
needed to fix a bug or create a new feature?
I didn't do a deep review of crucible, though still wonder why it should go against granular commits...
Well, the thing is, you might have to look at a set of commits in order
to get a picture of what was done. For example, usually Justin splits
a bigger commit into a raft of smaller ones, each one having a specific
explanation of what was done on the file being committed. But you have
to look at the lot to figure out the change as a whole, otherwise
you might lack context, bigger picture. So this granular approach is
good for whoever tries to get the svn log of that file, because the
commit message is specific, but needs some context when a review
is in order (which might be managed by mail as well, like someone
commits, and then sends a mail telling to treat a group of commits
as a "whole").
My concerns are now how much overlap will we have regarding jira. Hope they integrate somehow?
I thought I saw something about the integration on the crucible site... let me see... here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/features/integrate.jsp
Cheers
Andrea
+1 on starting to use a code review tool. I don't have much of a preference, will delegate to you guys on that one. However I do think that the ability to do granular commits is necessary. There is nothing worse than looking through svn logs for a file and finding a bunch of commit messages that are meaningless for that file.
Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi all,
so some time ago Chris proposed to make some code reviews
on GeoServer commits. I still like the idea a lot, and
from my personal perspective, Crucible looks easy and nice,
whilst the Google one seem kind of process heavy.
For reference:
http://www.nabble.com/code-review-tools-td17153080.html
Does anyone else have a preference? Can we start using
some of these tools?
I'm also wondering how these tools might shape our way to
commit. Like, it seems to me they kind of go against
a style of granular commits with a specific msg each,
and more to a single commit that encompasses all the work
needed to fix a bug or create a new feature?
I personally like granular commits when building new features
(whilst I prefer the second style for bug fixes),
wondering if there is any way to group them so that you
can still make up tight messages but submit a group of
commits as a single review subject.
Cheers
Andrea
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
!DSPAM:4007,4864a6b2244261431913854!
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
jdeolive@anonymised.com
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
+1 on starting to use a code review tool. I don't have much of a preference, will delegate to you guys on that one. However I do think that the ability to do granular commits is necessary. There is nothing worse than looking through svn logs for a file and finding a bunch of commit messages that are meaningless for that file.
C'mon Justin, don't tell me you like a good commit message
bundled with a diff full of reformats eh? 
(just kidding!)
Cheers
Andrea
Andrea Aime wrote:
Gabriel Roldán ha scritto:
....
My concerns are now how much overlap will we have regarding jira. Hope they integrate somehow?
I thought I saw something about the integration on the crucible site... let me see... here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/features/integrate.jsp
The documentation is a bit unclear, but my understanding is that CodeHaus must deploy the integration plugin? It appears to be the same as for Fisheye ( http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRAEXT/FishEye+for+JIRA+User's+Guide#FishEyeforJIRAUser'sGuide-UsingtheFishEyeplugin ).
Is the assumption that we're hosting it ourselves, or ask CodeHaus to see whether they can add it ?
-Arne