Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-14 09:52:23
Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> -- that is, I haven't see a mode in the tool to
>> annotate against 'rendered html'.
> That *would* be a nice feature, wouldn't it!? I don't think I've ever
> seen such a tool. Wait, that's not true. See
> http://djangobook.com/en/2.0/chapter01/ for an example.
Ok, the example doesn't seem to be live, but looks interesting...
>>> A couple of things to consider:
>>> 1. We'd still need a place for overall assessments that don't pertain
>>> to specific details.
>> There's an 'overall comments' section at the top of each review for
>> these kinds of comments.
> Yeaaaaaah... do you think putting that kind of commentary in the same
> place as a code review would work for our review process, though?
> Maybe it would, but I have a hard time envisioning it.
I think it can work -- and yes, it helps to see it, but the review summary is
part of the overall view of a review in code collab.
>>> 2. I know this is a bold predicition, but I think we will be
>>> transitioning to GitHub. It has an enormous momentum in the open
>>> source world, is responsive, and will continue to make a lot more
>>> sense as Boost is modularized. GitHub already supports code
>>> review. I think I'd rather go with a tool that requires absolutely
>>> no sysadmin on our part, is a known quantity to many already, etc.
>> I haven't used the github review capabilities here -- so we'd have to
>> evaluate what works best. As for the admin -- it's truly minimal --
>> basically the same as giving someone sandbox access today --
>> registering an email address so that comment discussions are tracked,
>> etc. And the author has to upload code to the tool -- but a simple
>> paragraph should be about enough to explain it.
> I mean someone has to install the tool, administer the system on which
> it runs, ensure that there's always enough CPU power/bandwidth, manage
> upgrades, etc. Also I don't love the need to upload code. Having the
> tool built into a code repo/sharing system removes steps and *should*
> make things run more smoothly (no separate login, for example).
I *think* the way this works is SmartBear provides the computers/site and
moderators/review managers admin things. Rather than speculate further though
I'm going to contact them and find out the details of how their open source
> One thing I do like very much about centering the process on a code
> review tool is that people can poke through making comments, etc., and
> then after they've taken a good look, consider voting and adding an
> overall write-up. That is, you can get into it incrementally. That's
> a lot harder with the current system.
Precisely. The other very nice feature is that the tool keeps track of which
comments each participant has read -- so as new comments are added if you
relook at the review summary it highlights and provides links directly for the
modified discussions -- since it's individualized you can catch up no
matter how long or short a time you've been away from the review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk