One difference is that it is not limited to GitHub so one can pick stuff from GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, local things etc:
The comments tool is quite nice. There also the integration with their other apps but this is orthogonal to the original question. Phil On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dale Henrichs < [email protected]> wrote: > Phil, > > This looks very similar to the code review tool available in GitHub itself > ... so the primary difference is in the workflow or do see an advantage > that you are reducing the number of overall commits (by using arc?) or ??? > Dale > > On 10/27/2016 01:49 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > For code reviews, Phabricator and Arcanist are nice. This is like > Facebook for code. Facebook uses this thing internally. As for FB, there > are "apps". > > [image: Inline image 3] > > Differential is the part of Phabricator for doing the reviews. > > The key idea is that you cannot commit to the repo directly. > You use "arc diff" to create a "revision" that you post to the system. You > get a number for this. Not a long git commit id, but a real number (e.g. > 610). > Code review ensues, where people can put comments etc through a web > interface. Comments can be at any level: file, line of code (click and add > comment on the line). > > We were doing Zend Framework 2 and so PSR-2 standards applied. > > There was a check happening before even being able to submit, so be > compliant or do not pass. A pain, but ultimately catched a few bugs that > could have been nasty. > > Once the review is successful, a user with the proper permissions will do > an "arc land" > > Once arc land was done, the differential landed on the github repo, and > the CI could pick it up for official packaging. > > All in all, it is a nice workflow when lots of people are working at once > on a code base. Also allows to limit the amount of crap ending up in the > official repo due to devs not having a clue (happened). > > I used the toolset for a project where the developers where remote and it > worked well (team size: Belgium 3 people, Romania 10+). > > Code was in Github private repo. > > https://secure.phabricator.com/ > > One can look around. > > HTH > Phil > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Dale Henrichs < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Guillermo, >> >> Apparently you don't like the github browser-based code review tool? >> >> What are your objections? >> >> Do you know of a better tool that is out in the wild or do you just have >> visions that code review could be better? >> >> Better tools are always possible, but it is sometimes nice to use a tool >> that you didn't have to build from scratch while creating the better tool:) >> >> Dale >> On 10/27/2016 05:06 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote: >> >> I would like to have a good code review tool, before having to do one >> ad-hoc... >> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> With future transition to github I ask myself what tools we will have >>> out of the box. >>> I google a bit and found these nice service http://ghv.artzub.com. >>> Try to search guillep and then pharo-core. It looks really nice. >>> >>> What other online services you know to analyse github projects? >>> >> >> >> > >
