[sakai2-tcc] code review process/software

[Mark J. Norton]

How does a code review differ from the review process before making a 
patch?  Does it apply only to new feature development?

On 6/28/2013 8:15 AM, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> 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
>
>