Subject: Re: [boost] Library Review Tool (paging Jeff Garland) -- was : Re: [xint] Formal Review Result
From: Kim Barrett (kab.conundrums_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-04 16:48:49
On May 4, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> After playing around with this tool a bit, I think it has several
> advantages over email discussions:
I'm a long time user of Code Collaborator (I was one of the people who recommended it to Jeff Garland for use in his company).
My experience has been that Code Collaborator is great for detailed discussions about specific bits of code or documentation. It's perfect for the kind of line by line review that one sometimes gets from people like Steven Watanabe. However, I've found it less well suited for some of the more broadly scoped design discussions that sometimes arise during boost reviews. If anything, a tool like Code Collaborator can sometimes lead to an overly focused discussion of details to the exclusion of more big-picture issues. The latter especially tend to arise with large blocks of new code, which again is the common case for boost reviews.
So while it is a useful tool, don't expect it to solve all of the complaints about boost's review process.
And I haven't used crucible at all, so can't comment on whether it might have any features that better address global discussions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk