review tools (was Re: Code review required for commits - formal Team vote.)

[Michael Wood]

On 17 October 2012 18:14, Matthieu Patou <mat at matws.net> wrote:
> Hey david
> Link return a 404 not found.
> Matthieu.

This link?

http://jk.ozlabs.org/projects/patchwork/

It works for me.

> David Disseldorp <ddiss at suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:53:19 -0400
> Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote:
>
>> Note: I don't care if it is Gerrit, or just a set of python scripts on
>> sn that say "this e-mail topic is active... this one is being reviewed
>> by x, this one is closed."
>>
>> Nobody says this has to be complex.  It as complex as we want to make
>> it, I explicitly stuck to giving requirements for a reason.  How to
>> implement those requirements in a non-odious way is another topic. :)
>
> I've used patchworks[1] in the past and can recommend it. It is non-
> intrusive such that the ML remains authoritative, and people can ignore
> it if they so choose.
>
> Git + a mailing list should remain the only mandatory review tools IMO.
>
> Cheers, David
>
> 1) http://jk.ozlabs.org/projects/patchwork/



-- 
Michael Wood <esiotrot at gmail.com>