3 ms·
The biggest issue of working without branches is that virtually all code review tools nowadays work on a Pull Request basis (thus branches). Almost no tool allo
by sebazzz 4y ago
The biggest issue of working without branches is that virtually all code review tools nowadays work on a Pull Request basis (thus branches). Almost no tool allows adding individual commits to a code review, the only one I know is Upsource but that is unfortunately no longer being developed.
As my team does trunk based development we're struggling with that. Since we're not able to find a code review tool that is compatible with our workflow, I assume we are doing something wrong and trunk based development is no longer an industry practice - though it works very well for us.
- choeger 4y agoAnd all these tools struggle with incremental code reviews for some reason. There are currently two options: 1. Add new commits to an existing branch. Any reviewier always needs the context from the earlier commits. 2. Overwrite the whole branch (force push). Older comments, and generally the delta between different versions of the change request, get lost or are at least very hard to see (e.g., might get mixed with changes from a rebate). Working with the patch/commit as artifact (as, e.g., Gerrit does it) seems so much more usable for code review that I can only speculate why no big tool offers it. Presumably, it requires too much internal knowledge about git to implement the backend correctly.
- littlestymaar 4y agoSending git patches on a mailing list works I guess (after all, it works well enough for the Linux kernel), but yeah it's a bit crude of a tool…
- arxanas 4y agoTrunk-based development is still in use at large companies. Usually they use something like Gerrit or Phabricator. You could try tools like https://graphite.dev/ https://graphite.dev/ or https://reviewable.io/ https://reviewable.io/, or Meta's Sapling + ReviewStack.