[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews

Dirkjan Ochtman dirkjan at ochtman.nl
Thu Sep 30 10:22:32 CEST 2010

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 20:32, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> I would like to recommend that the Python core developers start using
> a code review tool such as Rietveld or Reviewboard. I don't really
> care which tool we use (I'm sure there are plenty of pros and cons to
> each) but I do think we should get out of the stone age and start
> using a tool for the majority of our code reviews.

Rambling thoughts about some of the things mentioned in this thread.

I think hg-review looks interesting, though it may not (yet) have the
level of sophistication of Rietveld. (Public test instance at

It might be interesting to integrate Rietveld uploads in a Mercurial
extension, particularly if it gets integrated with mq somehow.

Email reviews seem to actually work really well for Mercurial (using
the patchbomb extension to send out patches to mailing lists); the
only problem we run into is that we can't keep track of things that
have been submitted and reviewed. But it makes commenting inline
effortless and provides a familiar interface for everyone.

For the imparting wisdom thing, I think that's more a culture thing
than a tool thing. If reviews happen in public as a standard part of
the process, then it probably won't appear judgmental or overbearing
either in a tool or in email (or issue tracker).

I hope people will discover and like mq, which makes it easy to keep
together a coherent series of patches.



More information about the Python-Dev mailing list