Alex Miller wrote: > I actually did such a review back in October, wrote up as a blog and my blog > editor ate it. I couldn't bear to rewrite it.... > > I have reviewed Jupiter and tried it out a bit myself and concluded that it > was a bad fit for our process. Comments are exchanged via xml checked into > source control, if I remember rightly, which seemed just awful. There were > some other things that I didn't like either, but can't remember now. > Alex, can you explain what was awful about xml shared trough the source control? > Crucible from Cenqua/Atlassian is another (not free) - basically like FishEye > except the commit sets in the web gui expand and let you add comments. I've > talked to people that use it themselves and love it. Of course, if you don't > like Fisheye, then you prob won't like Crucible either I'd guess. I've seen > demos of it and it looked nice. One possible drawback is that it is > commit-set oriented, which means you can't review before commit. That may be > one of those philosophical issues (review before/after commit). > > I don't really know of any other *good* tools focused on peer review. There > are of course ways to look at code together, but I don't know that any are > qualitatively better than what we are doing now. > > Google apparently has an in-house tool that they talk about open-sourcing > occasionally but I don't get the impression that we should hold our breath. > Supposed to be similar to Crucible. > There are other tools I saw before
http://smartbearsoftware.com/codecollab-codereviewer.php http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/ regards, Eugene _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
