This lists the ReviewBoard workflow steps for a pre-commit workflow: https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/getting-started/workflow/ On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
One potential solution is Phabricator (http://phabricator.org) which is a gerrit like tool except it also works with Mercurial. It is a fully open source platform though it works on a “patch” bases rather than a pull request basis.
I've been pleasantly unsurprised with the ReviewBoard CLI tools (RBtools):
* https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/ * https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/codebase/dev/contributing-patches/ * https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/2.0/users/
ReviewBoard supports Markdown, {Git, Mercurial, Subversion, ... }, full-text search
https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/extending/
* "Writing Review Board Extensions <https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/extending/extensions/>" * "Writing Authentication Backends <https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/extending/auth-backends/>"
Terry spoke about CLAs, which is an interesting thing too, because phabricator itself has some workflow around this I believe, at least one of the examples in their tour is setting up some sort of notification about requiring a CLA. It even has a built in thing for signing legal documents (although I’m not sure if that’s acceptable to the PSF, we’d need to ask VanL I suspect). Another neat feature, although I’m not sure we’re actually setup to take advantage of it, is that if you run test coverage numbers you can report that directly inline with the review / diff to see what lines of the patch are being exercised by a test or not.
AFAIU, these are not (yet) features of ReviewBoard (which is written in Python).