[sakai2-tcc] code review process/software

[Aaron Zeckoski]

The one we came up with at the conference is to try crucible so I
suggest we put that forward as a plan. I don't know what the costs
would be, someone will need to talk to our atlassian hosting provider.
We should give this a try and see how it works and then we can go from
there (try something else, stick with crucible and adopt a policy,
etc.)

Neal - I think you are the hosting contact for sakai atlassian services, right?

-AZ


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Neal Caidin <neal.caidin at apereo.org> wrote:
> I think the way to deal with that is to come up with a decision/plan and run it by the infrastructure group before proceeding.  If there are budget/cost needs, we should identify those too. Possibly the Atlassian hold-up is because it is a free service so harder to get their attention (just a guess)?
>
>
> -- Neal
>
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Aaron Zeckoski <azeckoski at unicon.net> wrote:
>
>> Makes sense to me, but as discussed in the TCC meeting at the
>> conference, something needs to be put in place and I don't want to see
>> this topic continue to have no actions taken.
>> -AZ
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Neal Caidin <neal.caidin at apereo.org> wrote:
>>> Apereo is undergoing an infrastructure review across projects. On We should, at a minimum see what is going on with that before making any final decision.
>>>
>>> 2 cents.
>>>
>>> -- Neal
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Aaron Zeckoski <azeckoski at unicon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That code was reviewed by multiple people. That said, I am all for
>>>> looking at a code review program of some kind. The last time this was
>>>> discussed just before the conference, I think someone was checking
>>>> with our atlassian provider about hooking up crucible. I am not sure
>>>> what the status of that is now though.
>>>>
>>>> -AZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Steve Swinsburg
>>>> <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> With the recent gradebook bug that was merged to the maintenance branch that
>>>>> caused an incompatibility, I think we have a good case for moving forward
>>>>> with some sort of code review software so we can get more eyes on fixes
>>>>> before they are committed. We need it work for merges also.
>>>>>
>>>>> My preference is to accelerate a move to github and use the tools there
>>>>> however its more complex as we need to maintain SVN as well (though could be
>>>>> synchronised and made read only).
>>>>>
>>>>> We use reviewboard at work and it works well, but I'm hesitant about using
>>>>> it here as it adds extra steps and more overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever solution it needs to be automatic IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are other peoples thoughts on tools?
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sakai2-tcc mailing list
>>>>> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sakai2-tcc mailing list
>>>> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile
>



-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile