5 ms·
I agree with this, and recently learned about https://github.com/google/git-appraise https://github.com/google/git-appraise which I believe stores the code revi
by justinsb 11y ago
I agree with this, and recently learned about https://github.com/google/git-appraise https://github.com/google/git-appraise which I believe stores the code reviews in the repo itself.
- procrastitron 11y agoThere's also integration with GitHub pull requests for that: https://github.com/google/git-pull-request-mirror https://github.com/google/git-pull-request-mirror
- infogulch 11y agoThis looks like a viable alternative to centralized solutions. I didn't even know git-notes[0] existed until I read that git appraise uses it. [0]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes
- timr 11y agoHi there, author of Omniref here. There's a substantial difference between what we're doing, and what git-appraise is doing. Git appraise is solving the problem of decentralized code review, but it doesn't solve the problem of making code reviews discoverable, after you've done them: having a directory full of JSON files doesn't make it easy to go from a line of code to the review that created it. In other words: we're trying to make it possible to look at your code, and see every bit of historical information, in context, that made it as good (or bad) as it is at that moment. That said, having the ability to export our annotations to a directory full of JSON files is high on the to-do list. You should absolutely be able to work with your own data.