Let me clarify: - i am 10000% not against git i am for it. - what i am against is treating a source as a bunch of static files.. like github does. so, if you telling me that we should not reinvent the wheel and use github code review features, i would encourage you to explain me how you see that process, staring at web page and having no ability to navigate the code in a way how you navigating smalltalk code in image. And think, how good the quality of your reviews will be is you will be crippled by "static source code" approach.
For me git as a backend is a way to go. But it looks like people misunderstood my original proposal, because git is orthogonal to what i want: i want more integration with issue tracker but more than that, i would love to have a tool which could create a reviews so i can send them to author or to bug tracker... and for creating a review i just need two versions of code.. and it is completely unimportant where those two versions come from: git, .cs, or .mcz files. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
