I'd love to see the ability to get some stats out of the tool, for example number of reviews submitted and number of reviews completed. In practice this may mean access to the underlying database and some sort of reporting tool hacked together in perl or whatever. That's fine as long as its possible somehow.
Also the need for a workflow - so you can start a review by submitting a patch for review, go back & forth a few times, and then close the review with a result code. IMHO its this last one that email sucks at as a "review tool" - there is no way to determine whether a review ever got done, or what happened to it. Regards, Sarah Smith Senior Engineer Team Lead Qt3D Nokia Qt Development Frameworks Mobile: +61 448 283 476 sarah.j.sm...@nokia.com On 05/02/2011, at 2:22 AM, ext Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > Hey, > > Thiago and I spent a few hours yesterday brainstorming about > requirements for the review tool. Here's the list we came up with: > > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmiZdoBOliRYdEptNEk2Y1pzeTZoY0RRRWt1ZW9IaFE&hl=en > > The weights are based on our initial gut-feel, but we'd like feedback on: > > - Should the features be weighed differently? > - Are there other features we want to see in this tool? > - Are there other tools than the ones listed that we should survey? > > The plan is to do the surveying and discussions here on the mailing > list. See the rating key in the document for how to rate candidates. > > I'll update the document accordingly when we reach somewhat consensus :-) > > Tor Arne > _______________________________________________ > Opengov mailing list > Opengov@qt-labs.org > http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov _______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
