On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Wes Turner <wes.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > >> >> >> One potential solution is Phabricator (http://phabricator.org) which is >> a gerrit like tool except it also works with Mercurial. It is a fully open >> source platform though it works on a “patch” bases rather than a pull >> request basis. >> > > I've been pleasantly unsurprised with the ReviewBoard CLI tools (RBtools): > > * https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/ > * https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/codebase/dev/contributing-patches/ > * https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/users/ > > ReviewBoard supports Markdown, {Git, Mercurial, Subversion, ... }, > full-text search > > https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/extending/ * "Writing Review Board Extensions <https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/extending/extensions/>" * "Writing Authentication Backends <https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/extending/auth-backends/>" > > > >> Terry spoke about CLAs, which is an interesting thing too, because >> phabricator itself has some workflow around this I believe, at least one of >> the examples in their tour is setting up some sort of notification about >> requiring a CLA. It even has a built in thing for signing legal documents >> (although I’m not sure if that’s acceptable to the PSF, we’d need to ask >> VanL I suspect). Another neat feature, although I’m not sure we’re actually >> setup to take advantage of it, is that if you run test coverage numbers you >> can report that directly inline with the review / diff to see what lines of >> the patch are being exercised by a test or not. >> > > AFAIU, these are not (yet) features of ReviewBoard (which is written in > Python). >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
