111–120 of 244 posts
Now all we need is Jeff Bezos to buy Github :-) That would be funny. But on the story this is a great move, Github is much nicer than Google Code and more actively supported. I had not heard of Gerrit before and that was a really pleasant discovery. Now to figure out how to get that setup at the office.
Does anyone know what code review system they are using with github?
Google hosting Go on GitHub. Microsoft hosting .NET on GitHub. It must feel like an accomplishment to be implicitly endorsed by these companies. Considering open source's history, you'd think its primary management tool would be open source as well. I guess it's GitHub's combination of accessible design + performant version control + lack of ads + reliability that made it the premium source for anything open source.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Google stopped bothering with Google Code when Github came to popularity. Google Code doesn't really fill Google's mission, so it's not absurd for them not to bother once someone who's truly focused on the space has created a superior competitor.
Google Code was created mainly to combat the monoculture of Sourceforge, which was slowly growing crappier. Google wanted to create a place open source people actually wanted to be, and had reliable hosting, instead of a place people had to sadly live with that was pretty unreliable (no offense meant to my friends at sourceforge). Doing so jump started some competition in this space. While github is slowly becoming a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go team member here. I've used five different code review tools, and Github is the worst of the five. I regularly bug them (Github) about this, and they know it. I hear rumors they've been working on it a lot. Github's review mechanisms barely scratch the surface of what's possible.
If any of the other ones are public, which did you like best? IIRC, Mondrian was good, but not great.
1) Google's current internal one
2) Gerrit (open source, to be used by Go)
3) Google's old one (Mondrian)
4) Rietveld (open source, but run for free at codereview.appspot.com)
5) Github
I would totally suspect that Phabricator or Review Board would be well above Github (as are 1-4 in my list), but I don't know where. I have little desire to use or explore new code review systems at this point. Four per day is enough for me at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what Gerrit gets them that Github doesn't have natively, too.
There are a lot of things lacking about GitHub's code review process (pull requests). Off the top of my head: - Merging a pull request (almost) always creates a merge commit, polluting the change history. Gerrit will automatically rebase the changes atop the master branch head, leaving a nice linear history. - Pull requests require the contributor to create a public fork of the repository they're committing to. I can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really curious to give Gerrit a try. Is it like the existing Rietveld system used for Go? - I've been using the "apply mail" flow to avoid merge commits and to squash commits when appropriate (based on Nathaniel Talbott's post http://blog.spreedly.com/author/ntalbott/#.VGVhz5PF_Zs ). It will be nice to have something automatic. - At least contributors with the commit bit can just create a feature branch and a pul…
We're going to build a bot that replies to pull requests to the Go core. It'll say "Sorry, we don't take pull requests, but here's how to use Gerrit [link]. Thanks!"
Google hosting Go on GitHub. Microsoft hosting .NET on GitHub. It must feel like an accomplishment to be implicitly endorsed by these companies. Considering open source's history, you'd think its primary management tool would be open source as well. I guess it's GitHub's combination of accessible design + performant version control + lack of ads + reliability that made it the premium source for anything open source.…
I agree. I almost think the name Git Hub is unfortunate at this point: they're doing something so right they could nearly invent their own VCS, use ESR's new tool, or even switch to hg/darcs/etc, and still gain momentum. The Go community seems to be hopping onto a fairly heavy pendulum.
Does anyone know what code review system they are using with github?
I'm curious what Gerrit gets them that Github doesn't have natively, too.
- GitHub sends each comment individually, encouraging "shotgun commenting" instead of a coherent set on the sender side, and leaving the receiver to deal with dozens of individual emails.
- GitHub attaches line comments to the deltas, which makes the comments disappear if the underlying code changes. This makes it easy to "lose" a comment during a review, and forget to check that something was fixed properly. Even if a comment survives, GitHub doesn't track (non-) resolution in any way, so it's still easy to forget to take care of stuff.
- You can't customize things: can't pick your favorite source code font, the wrapping margin, syntax highlighting colors (as it doesn't have syntax highlighting at all), links that open your editor directly on the correct line, etc.
As it happens, https://reviewable.io fixes all these, and has a much lighter-weight integration with GitHub than Gerrit does, not to mention a much friendlier UI. And yeah, it's my own project so I'm obviously biased, but check it out if you're annoyed with GitHub's code reviews but Gerrit/Phabricator are too heavy for your needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If any of the other ones are public, which did you like best? IIRC, Mondrian was good, but not great.
From best to worse, in my experience: 1) Google's current internal one 2) Gerrit (open source, to be used by Go) 3) Google's old one (Mondrian) 4) Rietveld (open source, but run for free at codereview.appspot.com) 5) Github I would totally suspect that Phabricator or Review Board would be well above Github (as are 1-4 in my list), but I don't know where. I have little desire to use or explore new code review systems…