We may want to add a link from the Wiki.. On 3/13/13 1:44 PM, "Bob Kerns" <[email protected]> wrote:
>https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/HDT > >Hurray! Thanks, Atlassian! > >We should find a place to link to it. > >I started a review of my own submission. Entirely unnecessary as a review, >but you can look at the interface for reviewing. You'll need to log in to >participate in the review; I'm not sure exactly where the option to join >the review is located, but I did enable the option for anyone to join. > >https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/cru/CR-15 > >In my experience, this is most useful when there's discussion needed on >specific areas. If you click through to the individual source files, you >can comment on the changed lines by clicking on them and entering your >comment. > >I think the current difference between Fisheye's review functionality and >the full Crucible functionality is that this commenting ability seems to >be >limited to lines in the changesets, so it's patch review, rather than full >code review. > >My suggestion is that we view this as a convenient tool for discussion, >rather than some process gate / big stick. That is, if one of us wants to >discuss the specifics of some patch, just start up a review of the >relevant >patch(es), and send an invite to the list. We can send a summary of the >review when done -- where "done" just means the discussion is over. > >Note that you can upload a patch and initiate a review *before* submitting >it, if you want input beforehand. > >Unfortunately, this doesn't have the beneficial effect on searching for us >I'd hoped for, because their robots.txt is all-excluding. I'm not sure why >that would be. Searching for, e.g. MapReduceNature turns up old Hadoop >branches. I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation. Ideas?
