On 14 Feb 2012, at 08:43, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > Code review is usually done before its commited to the main tree. For each > part of the tree, there is at least one, sometimes more maintainers. > If you have changes, you figure out, who is the maintainer, and send the > patch for review.
There are better tools for this. For a while for Étoilé Nicolas ran ReviewBoard[1], which let you upload a diff and let other people inspect it against the current svn head. LLVM has a mechanism that works the other way and scrapes the llvm-commits mailing list for patches as attachments and presents them in a web interface (I'm not sure what this uses, but I could find out). For post-commit reviews, pretty much anything supports showing the diff in a convenient way. I usually look at GNUstep changes using viewvc on GNA, which lets you inspect a revision, see what has changed, and inspect diffs for everything. Fossil has a similar functionality built in (and, because the web UI can run locally, you can see the same interface whether connected or disconnected). Github has a version that reflects the git philosophy: more features, worse UI. > Important here is to send a patch inline, not as attachment. The down side of this is that mail clients and mailing list software have a habit of mangling diffs sent inline, so you often can't apply a diff sent this way. You can do code review, but not testing. David [1] http://www.reviewboard.org/ -- Sent from my Difference Engine _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
