From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VS2eE-0005kh-VH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:30:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.54; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.214.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VS2eD-0002wU-OM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:30:14 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id mz12so1467424bkb.13 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 03:30:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.123.199 with SMTP id q7mr12493863bkr.10.1380882607199; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 03:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 03:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:30:07 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jac2KpG7gEkAO4YbCY4ai_CEKSg Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11334a3c478b9004e7e7c903 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: reviewboard.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VS2eD-0002wU-OM Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Code review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:30:15 -0000 --001a11334a3c478b9004e7e7c903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long series of commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many things. Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things. I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed change, or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and separated. It really sucks to review things in sequence and then discover that some code you spent some time thinking about or puzzling out got deleted/rewritten/changed in a later commit. It also can make it harder to review things when later code uses new APIs or behaviour changes introduced in earlier commits - you have to either keep it all in your head, do lots of tab switching, or do a squash yourself (in which case every reviewer would have to manually do that). On a related note, github seems to have lost the plot with regards to code review - they are spending their time adding 3D renderers to their diff viewer but not making basic improvements other tools had for years. So, I'd like to suggest the idea of using Review Board: http://www.reviewboard.org/ It's an open source, dedicated code review tool used by lots of big name companies for their internal work. It has git[hub] integration and a lot of very neat features, like the ability to attach screenshots to reviews. Also more basic ones, like side by side diffs. Branches can be and often are submitted to the system as single reviews. The company behind it (disclosure - written and run by a long time friend of mine) offers hosting plans, but we could also host it on a Foundation server instead. --001a11334a3c478b9004e7e7c903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Git makes it easy to fork peoples work off and create long= series of commits that achieve some useful goal. That's great for many= things. Unfortunately, code review is not one of those things.

I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex = pieces of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed ch= ange, or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and s= eparated. It really sucks to review things in sequence and then discover th= at some code you spent some time thinking about or puzzling out got deleted= /rewritten/changed in a later commit. It also can make it harder to review = things when later code uses new APIs or behaviour changes introduced in ear= lier commits - you have to either keep it all in your head, do lots of tab = switching, or do a squash yourself (in which case every reviewer would have= to manually do that).

On a related note, github seems to have lost the plot w= ith regards to code review - they are spending their time adding 3D rendere= rs to their diff viewer but not making basic improvements other tools had f= or years.

So, I'd like to suggest the idea of using Review Bo= ard:


It's an open so= urce, dedicated code review tool used by lots of big name companies for the= ir internal work. It has git[hub] integration and a lot of very neat featur= es, like the ability to attach screenshots to reviews. Also more basic ones= , like side by side diffs. Branches can be and often are submitted to the s= ystem as single reviews.

The company behind it (disclosure - written and run by = a long time friend of mine) offers hosting plans, but we could also host it= on a Foundation server instead.


--001a11334a3c478b9004e7e7c903--