From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B451FE4E for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754244AbcFPK4N (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:56:13 -0400 Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([185.25.241.215]:39496 "EHLO ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754214AbcFPK4E (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:56:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29C3463315; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:56:02 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qIn4kY1xxRlV; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:56:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from salo (82-70-136-246.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.70.136.246]) by ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CD174630EF; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:56:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:55:56 +0100 From: Richard Ipsum To: Andreas Krey Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Code review tool recommendations - replacement for crucible? Message-ID: <20160616105556.GA8721@salo> References: <20160616094108.GA14661@inner.h.apk.li> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160616094108.GA14661@inner.h.apk.li> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for pointers to review tools that work with git (obviously), > and can deal sensibly with bigger reviews. Things we need: > > - Ability to split (set of) commits into multiple reviews, > so parts of changes can be reviewed by the respective owners > (or assign different reviewers to different files/subtrees > in a review). > > - Tracking of files (or changes) already reviewed (due to the large numbers), > and of the handling of issues found so far. > > - Support incremental reviews, not just e.g. over the content of a > pull request (bitbucket) When review comments are processed people > want to be able to only review that change, and not to be forced > to find that change in the entire previous changeset without > the tool's support. > Hey, Have you considered Gerrit[1] already? It would seem to handle the cases you're interested in. [1]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/