[Python-Dev] My thinking about the development process

[Wes Turner]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Donald Stufft <donald at 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).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20141206/c4246777/attachment.html>