Regarding Jupiter, I wish I had my notes as I had several specific objections, which I now only vaguely recall. I think not only did it require you to check in the review files, it also modified the .project or other eclipse project settings, can't remember exactly. I don't like that latter as it junks up the project files for others not using Jupiter. And the former seems like there is a question as to how long you keep those files around.
Reviews could only be associated with a single Eclipse project at a time, which seemed highly annoying in our environment, where many (most?) reviews cross projects. They seem to have a fairly rigid proces in mind that requires a fair amount of form filling. Maybe this was just a "feel" thing. It didn't seem unworkable, just not worth the effort over just looking at code with other people on a conf call and/or reviewing diffs. I'd be willing to give it another shot if people were interested. Eugene, do you have any experience using it? I don't know anyone actively using Jupiter but I'd be interested to hear reports. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Kuleshov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:05:36 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago Subject: Re: [tc-dev] code review tools 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 _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
