Does anyone object to this approach? Any source file that's being reviewed (hopefully one or very few at a time) should be uploaded to Google Docs as a text document. Discussion can consist of the built in google chat functionality but mainly by inserting a ((( ... ))) section in scaladoc comments and writing your name and thoughts there. The advantage to this "poor man's code review" is that there's no overhead for someone to join the effort - no arranging things in a spreadsheet or linking threads. I suspect that may have been an impediment until now. Of course nothing will be merged back from there; it's just a context for discussion that may lead to tickets.
------------------------------------- Erkki Lindpere<[email protected]> wrote: I just noticed that GitHub also lets you comment on *commits*, but not files :( But Google Docs or whatever you end up deciding on works for me. On Dec 29, 11:42 pm, Ross Mellgren <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a code review board (reviewboard.liftweb.net), but it's pretty > geared towards changes. I don't know if it can be configured or used > or what-have-you for reviewing the current state of code. > > -Ross > > On Dec 29, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Erkki Lindpere wrote: > > > Another option would be to use a specialized code review tool, though > > someone would have to host it. There's one thing that may not fit > > about these, though: usually they are for reviewing *changes* and not > > existing code. I don't know what the good ones are, but some otherwise > > commercial products are free for Open Source projects (all of these > > list Git support as well): > > > SmartBear CodeCollaborator / CodeReviewer > >http://smartbear.com/codecollab.php > >http://smartbear.com/codecollab-buy.php<-- about open source > > licensing > > > Atlassian Crucible > >http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/ > >http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/licensing-faq.jsp#open-source > > <-- about open source licensing > > > I know there are some open source ones as well, personally I've only > > used Crucible once and an open source tool a long time ago (don't > > remember which one). > > > Or how about writing a simple code review app in lift as an example > > project :) > > > Erkki L > > > On Dec 29, 9:31 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Neat, thanks! > >> Where to post it is a very, very good question. I would suggest not > >> to invest much in a particular medium before you help us > >> crystallize a good answer! > >> (Attention all interested in the naming progess: I think we made > >> good progress in terms of guidelines, and I think the next step is > >> to discuss this question!) > >> Originally the idea was to keep an organized Google Docs > >> spreadsheet. I am not sure how sustainable the approach is though, > >> because the amount of overhead may weigh it down too much. I am > >> curious if that is part of why not much progress has been made. > >> Jim, if you're reading this (I hope you are!) can you comment? > >> The problem with just filing tickets is that everyone has different > >> ideas, so discussion may be necessary to arrive at a consensus. At > >> least posting it here first means if someone objects he will have a > >> chance to voice his objection. > >> One idea is one discusson thread, in the main Lift list, per Lift > >> class. If everyone focuses on one or a few classes at a time it > >> won't clog the list too much. > >> Another idea of mine is to put the lift source file on Google Docs > >> as a text document, and people can contribute to the discussion by > >> writing inside the scaladoc comments. Nothing will get merged > >> directly back to git; it's just a very lightweight way of > >> discussing. E.g.: > >> /** > >> Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxx Xxx > >> Erkki: why is xxx xx xxxxxxx > >> nafg: well, xxx and xxx > >> erkki: okay, but ... > >> */ > >> def someFoo ... > > >> What do you think? Very out of the box but it means very little > >> copy-pasting work: the only overhead is uploading a source file; > >> the rest is pure discussion in an inherently organized context. > >> The disadvantage compared to threads on the list is that it won't > >> get as much automatic public scrutiny, but whoever wants can have > >> Google Docs email them any edits. > >> Thoughts, everyone? > >> Thanks. > > >> ------------------------------------- > > >> Erkki Lindpere<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hmm... actually seems like it will be a long document, I've already > >> got several suggestions with 10 minutes of looking. Maybe I'll do a > >> complete code review for the lift-webkit module if I have time / feel > >> like it. Where should I post it? There doesn't seem to be a separate > >> developers list. > > >> Erkki L > > >> On Dec 29, 7:58 pm, Erkki Lindpere <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Ok, I'll collect some specific issues I have with the API over a bit > >>> longer period of usage and post them as an issue in GitHub? Or here? > > >>> Erkki L > > >>> On Dec 28, 4:40 am, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> * there are several classes that have lots of methods in them that > >>>>> don't all belong together. For example: S, LiftRules, I'm sure > >>>>> there's > >>>>> more. Some packages have too many classes as well. I think there > >>>>> should be a cleaner separation of concerns. > > >>>> Again, I think there is a willingness to do something about this > >>>> but we need > >>>> your feedback. How would you categorize the concerns that S and > >>>> LiftRules > >>>> address? How would you like to see that categorization reflected > >>>> in the API? > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Lift" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected] > >> . > >> For more options, visit this group > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en > >> . > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Lift" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en > > . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
