5 ms·

Code reviews at Google

73 points by frognibble 16y ago

andymoe 16y ago
http://www.fogcreek.com/kiln/ http://www.fogcreek.com/kiln/ has almost all the features mentioned and they are really really useful. Free for up to two users with the students and startup discount. The free link takes a bit of digging to find if I remember correctly. edit: kiln: http://www.fogcreek.com/Kiln/StudentAndStartup.html http://www.fogcreek.com/Kiln/StudentAndStartup.html Better yet sign up for fogbugz and add kiln on to fogbugz: http://www.fogcreek.com/fogbugz/StudentAndStartup.html http://www.fogcreek.com/fogbugz/StudentAndStartup.html
dlsspy 16y ago
I've been using gerrit extensively lately. It's a great review system on top of git. I work with people around the world on software -- including people I've never met who decide to contribute a change (which enters the same workflow as a project lead). It's just awesome.
AnneTheAgile 16y ago
The open source implementation, Rietveld [ http://code.google.com/p/rietveld http://code.google.com/p/rietveld ], sounds very interesting. Perhaps it could be used in programming classes and might also fit in with pair programming training.
- sandGorgon 16y ago
  does using Rietveld mean that one has to use the app-engine ?
  - dlsspy 16y ago
    gerrit was originally a port of rietveld for git, but is its own thing now. You run it on your own machine.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
brown9-2 16y ago
Blog currently seems down, Google's cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:http://thebogles.com/blog/2010/06/code-reviews-at-google/&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cac...
curtis 16y ago
After my experience with code reviews at Google, I came to the conclusion that Mondrian had some definite deficiencies. On the other hand, later at Mozilla, we did code reviews without any real tool support at all. That was a lot worse. I wrote up some of my thoughts in a blog post which you can find at http://curtisb.posterous.com/what-should-mozilla-look-for-in-an-automated http://curtisb.posterous.com/what-should-mozilla-look-for-in....
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  > Mondrian had some definite deficiencies You mean like its approximately two 8s uptime? :P I do think you're spot on about how Mondrian encourages the nit-picking and doesn't do enough to encourage structural discussions. On the other hand, maybe those discussions should be had before there's any code to review. So . . . meh. Tough problem.
  - curtis 16y ago
    I've always found it hard to do something like a structural discussion without having written some code first. At Google I found that I could request an informal code review in email rather than using the formal request mechanism ("g4 mail"). I could even provide a changelist number so the reviewer could look at it in Mondrian. But by having used email I could frame things so the reviewer would look at the high-level picture. That usually seemed to work.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Mondrian's integrated with e-mail, so I don't really see what the problem is. Oftentimes I'll start a discussion by mailing off a code review with some sketches of how I'll attack the problem, and then the resulting design discussion occurs in an e-mail thread, which is all recorded on the Mondrian code review if I decide to submit the CL. Another nice feature of that is that if parts of the design discussion pertain to particular features in the code, you can attach them as such, so that the code is automatically quoted in the e-mail thread.
topbanana 16y ago
I like Atlassian's Crucible for code reviews. Worth checking out if you have some budget for this sort of thing
deepalshaw 16y ago
I was pleased to read your post, keep up the good work. http://casinowebmaster.wordpress.com/ http://casinowebmaster.wordpress.com/
MarcusA 16y ago
I see that Rietveld is only a part of Mondrian or at least described as "not the full Mondrian tool". Googlers, what are the differences between the two. Wonder why the full Mondrian tool couldn't be released.

73 points by frognibble 16y ago

http://www.fogcreek.com/kiln/ http://www.fogcreek.com/kiln/ has almost all the features mentioned and they are really really useful. Free for up to two users with the students and startup discount. The free link takes a bit of digging to find if I remember correctly. edit: kiln: http://www.fogcreek.com/Kiln/StudentAndStartup.html http://www.fogcreek.com/Kiln/StudentAndStartup.html Better yet sign up for fogbugz and add kiln on to fogbugz: http://www.fogcreek.com/fogbugz/StudentAndStartup.html http://www.fogcreek.com/fogbugz/StudentAndStartup.html

dlsspy 16y ago

I've been using gerrit extensively lately. It's a great review system on top of git. I work with people around the world on software -- including people I've never met who decide to contribute a change (which enters the same workflow as a project lead). It's just awesome.

AnneTheAgile 16y ago

The open source implementation, Rietveld [ http://code.google.com/p/rietveld http://code.google.com/p/rietveld ], sounds very interesting. Perhaps it could be used in programming classes and might also fit in with pair programming training.

sandGorgon 16y ago
does using Rietveld mean that one has to use the app-engine ?
- dlsspy 16y ago
  gerrit was originally a port of rietveld for git, but is its own thing now. You run it on your own machine.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

brown9-2 16y ago

Blog currently seems down, Google's cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:http://thebogles.com/blog/2010/06/code-reviews-at-google/&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cac...

curtis 16y ago

After my experience with code reviews at Google, I came to the conclusion that Mondrian had some definite deficiencies. On the other hand, later at Mozilla, we did code reviews without any real tool support at all. That was a lot worse. I wrote up some of my thoughts in a blog post which you can find at http://curtisb.posterous.com/what-should-mozilla-look-for-in-an-automated http://curtisb.posterous.com/what-should-mozilla-look-for-in....

houseabsolute 16y ago
> Mondrian had some definite deficiencies You mean like its approximately two 8s uptime? :P I do think you're spot on about how Mondrian encourages the nit-picking and doesn't do enough to encourage structural discussions. On the other hand, maybe those discussions should be had before there's any code to review. So . . . meh. Tough problem.
- curtis 16y ago
  I've always found it hard to do something like a structural discussion without having written some code first. At Google I found that I could request an informal code review in email rather than using the formal request mechanism ("g4 mail"). I could even provide a changelist number so the reviewer could look at it in Mondrian. But by having used email I could frame things so the reviewer would look at the high-level picture. That usually seemed to work.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Mondrian's integrated with e-mail, so I don't really see what the problem is. Oftentimes I'll start a discussion by mailing off a code review with some sketches of how I'll attack the problem, and then the resulting design discussion occurs in an e-mail thread, which is all recorded on the Mondrian code review if I decide to submit the CL. Another nice feature of that is that if parts of the design discussion pertain to particular features in the code, you can attach them as such, so that the code is automatically quoted in the e-mail thread.

topbanana 16y ago

I like Atlassian's Crucible for code reviews. Worth checking out if you have some budget for this sort of thing

deepalshaw 16y ago

I was pleased to read your post, keep up the good work. http://casinowebmaster.wordpress.com/ http://casinowebmaster.wordpress.com/

MarcusA 16y ago

I see that Rietveld is only a part of Mondrian or at least described as "not the full Mondrian tool". Googlers, what are the differences between the two. Wonder why the full Mondrian tool couldn't be released.