[sakai2-tcc] code review process/software

[Steve Swinsburg]

Crucible is free for open source. There may be a charge from the hosting
provider though, can we find out?

cheers,
Steve


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:47 PM, 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20130629/1e8be1e8/attachment.html