4 ms·
What are the advantage to using Gerret, Kiln, etc for code review? Is it for people who using hg/git/etc without a web interface? The way I normally do them is
by voidlogic 13y ago
What are the advantage to using Gerret, Kiln, etc for code review? Is it for people who using hg/git/etc without a web interface?
The way I normally do them is you submit your pull request on github or bitbucket and everyone on the team makes suggestions and asks questions until they are satisfied.
Once they are happy they comment "LGTM". Once you have a LGTM from your team members, you pull your pull request.
- aiiane 13y agoSide by side diffs, automatic integration, transactional commenting (queue up a bunch of comments, then publish them with a single notification to the patch writer), enforcement of LGTMs, better visualization of the evolution of a patch, better tracking of resolved comments, etc.
- voidlogic 13y agoThanks for the info, I'm glad someone responded. Bitbucket has side by side diffs, but I think both those and inline difs work fine (just a matter of taste). I don't think those other features (for me) justify the complexity of running another application. For example, not enforcing LGTMs is a feature, in am emergency, a team member can get stuff done. But if someone abuses that regularly, they loose pull rights (or are fired).
- npsimons 13y agoOne way we use Gerrit is to hook the CI (Jenkins) up to it and make sure that the repo as patched passes a number of tests (static analyses, compilation with full warnings, unit and regression tests, build on multiple platforms, etc). If it doesn't pass the CI tests, Gerrit won't allow it to be merged. We let the machine do the dirty work, so we can focus on the semantics of a change.