{"thread":{"id":"42627","subject":"Code review tool recommendations - replacement for crucible?","startedAt":"2016-06-16T09:41:18Z","lastAt":"2016-06-16T12:14:29Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Andreas Krey","Richard Ipsum"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"289345","messageId":"20160616094108.GA14661@inner.h.apk.li","threadId":"42627","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Code review tool recommendations - replacement for crucible?","fromName":"Andreas Krey","fromEmail":"a.krey@gmx.de","sentAt":"2016-06-16T09:41:08Z","receivedAt":"2016-06-16T09:41:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"a.krey@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37810?v=4"},"body":"Hi all,\n\nI'm looking for pointers to review tools that work with git (obviously),\nand can deal sensibly with bigger reviews. Things we need:\n\n- Ability to split (set of) commits into multiple reviews,\n  so parts of changes can be reviewed by the respective owners\n  (or assign different reviewers to different files/subtrees\n  in a review).\n\n- Tracking of files (or changes) already reviewed (due to the large numbers),\n  and of the handling of issues found so far.\n\n- Support incremental reviews, not just e.g. over the content of a\n  pull request (bitbucket) When review comments are processed people\n  want to be able to only review that change, and not to be forced\n  to find that change in the entire previous changeset without\n  the tool's support.\n\nWe were mostly content with atlassian crucible so far, but\nit simply fails to index[1] our large product repo (5+ Gb) so\nwe switched to just give it diffs to review, and it fails\nto properly display renames, and fails in a few minor\nbut annoying ways in dealing with these big reviews.\n\nAny pointers?\n\n- Andreas\n\n[1] Crucible seems to be svn-centric, and the mapping\n    from git to svn changesets they use internally\n    apparently is O(n^{too much}) - just indexing\n    a new branch identical to an existing one takes\n    hours here.\n\n-- \n\"Totally trivial. Famous last words.\"\nFrom: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>\nDate: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800\n"},{"id":"289352","messageId":"20160616105556.GA8721@salo","threadId":"42627","inReplyTo":"20160616094108.GA14661@inner.h.apk.li","subject":"Re: Code review tool recommendations - replacement for crucible?","fromName":"Richard Ipsum","fromEmail":"richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk","sentAt":"2016-06-16T10:55:56Z","receivedAt":"2016-06-16T10:56:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk","avatar":null},"body":"On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:\n> Hi all,\n> \n> I'm looking for pointers to review tools that work with git (obviously),\n> and can deal sensibly with bigger reviews. Things we need:\n> \n> - Ability to split (set of) commits into multiple reviews,\n>   so parts of changes can be reviewed by the respective owners\n>   (or assign different reviewers to different files/subtrees\n>   in a review).\n> \n> - Tracking of files (or changes) already reviewed (due to the large numbers),\n>   and of the handling of issues found so far.\n> \n> - Support incremental reviews, not just e.g. over the content of a\n>   pull request (bitbucket) When review comments are processed people\n>   want to be able to only review that change, and not to be forced\n>   to find that change in the entire previous changeset without\n>   the tool's support.\n> \n\nHey,\n\nHave you considered Gerrit[1] already?\nIt would seem to handle the cases you're interested in.\n\n[1]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/\n"},{"id":"289358","messageId":"20160616121419.GQ30134@inner.h.apk.li","threadId":"42627","inReplyTo":"20160616105556.GA8721@salo","subject":"Re: Code review tool recommendations - replacement for crucible?","fromName":"Andreas Krey","fromEmail":"a.krey@gmx.de","sentAt":"2016-06-16T12:14:19Z","receivedAt":"2016-06-16T12:14:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"a.krey@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37810?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:55:56 +0000, Richard Ipsum wrote:\n...\n> Have you considered Gerrit[1] already?\n> It would seem to handle the cases you're interested in.\n\nPossible, but only after a lot of user education.\n\nWe don't currently rewrite commits for review comments, and\nneither can we get (all) people to create feature-oriented\ncommits, so we really need to review multiple commits in\none review, and assign reviewers to subtrees. We could do\nthat by repacking the changes into new commits, but that\nwould defeat the purpose.\n\nAlso, we often do reviews after feature integration,\nand also do partial reviews long before a new\nproject is integrated.\n\nIn other words: Lots of impedance mismatch.\n\nAndreas\n\n-- \n\"Totally trivial. Famous last words.\"\nFrom: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>\nDate: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800\n"}]}