Live data from Hacker News

Pull Request File Tree Feedback

github.com

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#51

Hi! I am one of the authors of https://graphite.dev , we are basically a really fancy client to GH that lets you review others PRs without making them change their workflow at all (posts everything to GH etc) We've had a file tree for some time now (along with some of the other feedback I'm seeing in this thread, large diffs etc). If anyone wants to give it a spin, happy to give you an invite :)

I've been looking for something like this for weeks. Seems fantastic. How do I get that invite?

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#52

I’d settle for them making PRs as useful as they were in 2015, before they messed up some of the most basic functionality: showing the diff, and showing review comments. They hide big diffs behind a “load more” link, and as a result people often fail to code review the most substantial part of a change because they scan right past it, thinking it’s a removed file or binary or something. Then, once you submit a review…

This is by far the most infuriating thing about the PR UI, along with the fact that you can't comment anywhere outside of the "patch", meaning you can't point out anything that is more than a couple of lines away.

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#53
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only Bitbucket Cloud would play catchup now. So many times I read about a bitbucket feature to only find out it is server only and we can't use it.

I believe Bitbucket Cloud and Bitbucket Server/Datacenter (nee Stash) are still two completely separate codebases that just happen to share a name.

And, probably for worse, Atlassian is ending support for server in favour of their worse cloud version.

https://www.atlassian.com/migration/assess/journey-to-cloud

There's still data center version but it's priced expensive to discourage you.

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#54

I’d settle for them making PRs as useful as they were in 2015, before they messed up some of the most basic functionality: showing the diff, and showing review comments. They hide big diffs behind a “load more” link, and as a result people often fail to code review the most substantial part of a change because they scan right past it, thinking it’s a removed file or binary or something. Then, once you submit a review…

No post body was provided.

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#56

Hi! I am one of the authors of https://graphite.dev , we are basically a really fancy client to GH that lets you review others PRs without making them change their workflow at all (posts everything to GH etc) We've had a file tree for some time now (along with some of the other feedback I'm seeing in this thread, large diffs etc). If anyone wants to give it a spin, happy to give you an invite :)

I've been looking for something like this for weeks. Seems fantastic. How do I get that invite?

Send an email (from the address you use to sign into GitHub!) to jacob@graphite.dev :)

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#57

If anyone is interested, I've been building a code review tool called Crocodile[0] that lets you review GitHub PRs. It has a similar file browser to the left plus floating comments, threaded discussions, and more. [0] https://www.crocodile.dev/

Just casually following this thread, this is the third SaaS I've seen offering an alternative code review tool to supplement GitHub. It's either sorely needed to make up for how bad GitHub is, or it's true that we engineers can't help but makes tools for people exactly like ourselves.

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#58
I'm currently using Octotree[1]. It has more features than this proposed GitHub implementation. Namely, files have icons, count of added/removed lines is displayed inline, comments are displayed inline (super easy to jump from comment to comment), etc. For now I'll keep using Octotree but I'm curious of the direction this implementation will take.

[1] https://www.octotree.io/

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#59

I’d settle for them making PRs as useful as they were in 2015, before they messed up some of the most basic functionality: showing the diff, and showing review comments. They hide big diffs behind a “load more” link, and as a result people often fail to code review the most substantial part of a change because they scan right past it, thinking it’s a removed file or binary or something. Then, once you submit a review…

> They hide big diffs behind a “load more” link, and as a result people often fail to code review the most substantial part of a change because they scan right past it, thinking it’s a removed file or binary or something. This. Every PR I have to do ctrl-F "load diff" and then immediately click on _all_ of the diffs. It's !@#$ing annoying. I've also lost comments when the comment is part of a review and pushed to the…

For the stuff I work on I prefer the big diffs to be hidden. It's nearly always yarn.lock and I have no desire to see that monstrosity in all its glory.

Re: Pull Request File Tree Feedback

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They hide big diffs behind a “load more” link, and as a result people often fail to code review the most substantial part of a change because they scan right past it, thinking it’s a removed file or binary or something. This. Every PR I have to do ctrl-F "load diff" and then immediately click on _all_ of the diffs. It's !@#$ing annoying. I've also lost comments when the comment is part of a review and pushed to the…

For the stuff I work on I prefer the big diffs to be hidden. It's nearly always yarn.lock and I have no desire to see that monstrosity in all its glory.

i have no idea why we include these in code reviews tbh
Post reply on HN