Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Il giorno lun 2 gen 2017 alle 12:10, Alexander Kobel ha scritto: Hi, On 2017-01-02 11:50, Federico Bruni wrote: Il giorno mer 28 dic 2016 alle 20:59, Graham Percival ha scritto: On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 06:35:30PM +0100, Federico Bruni wrote:

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Hi, On 2017-01-02 11:50, Federico Bruni wrote: Il giorno mer 28 dic 2016 alle 20:59, Graham Percival ha scritto: On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 06:35:30PM +0100, Federico Bruni wrote: It would be possible to add a configuration option in git-cl so you can login in

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Il giorno mer 28 dic 2016 alle 20:59, Graham Percival ha scritto: On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 06:35:30PM +0100, Federico Bruni wrote: It would be possible to add a configuration option in git-cl so you can login in rietveld with a specific browser different from the

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

You could switch to Gerrit for code review. It is a native git tool, so it needs less awkward scripts. There are some hosted providers (such as gerrithub), or you can run your own version of Gerrit if you have inclination to set it up. Setting up your own account authentication infrastructure is

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 06:35:30PM +0100, Federico Bruni wrote: > It would be possible to add a configuration option in git-cl so > you can login in rietveld with a specific browser different from > the default one? Certainly! In the source, I see: - If your browser is on a different

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

I've been trying to definitively stop using my gmail account recently and lilypond review is still forcing me to log in to a browser with my google account. Not a big deal, since my contributions are about 3 per year.. But a free alternative would be great. Small workaround suggestion (not

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Simon Albrecht writes: > Thanks for the heads-up on previous discussions, now I know more about > the pitfalls. > > Also I see now that the ultimate free alternative would likely be the > one Jan N. brought up in that old discussion, namely exchanging > patches via e-mail

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Thanks for the heads-up on previous discussions, now I know more about the pitfalls. Also I see now that the ultimate free alternative would likely be the one Jan N. brought up in that old discussion, namely exchanging patches via e-mail only. Which makes sense with git’s design, however the

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 02:39:09PM +, James wrote: > On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:33:11 +0100 > Simon Albrecht wrote: > > > Whatever the reason for this weirdness, I think it would really be > > better if we had a code review tool which didn’t rely on external > > login

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:33:11 +0100 Simon Albrecht wrote: > Hello everybody, > > just now I tried to login with Google in order to close my two recent > Rietveld reviews. However, Google decided that despite entering a > verification code from e-mail it couldn’t confirm

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

On 27.12.2016 14:09, Urs Liska wrote: While we're at it: is there really no tool that integrates with Git directly? I find it pretty inconvenient and partly unreliable that the author is responsible himself that what is pushed actually is what has been reviewed. Well, I had a brief look at

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Am 27. Dezember 2016 13:33:11 MEZ, schrieb Simon Albrecht : >Hello everybody, > >just now I tried to login with Google in order to close my two recent >Rietveld reviews. However, Google decided that despite entering a >verification code from e-mail it couldn’t confirm

Re: Free alternatives to Rietveld?

Hi Simon, 2016-12-27 13:33 GMT+01:00 Simon Albrecht : > Hello everybody, > > just now I tried to login with Google in order to close my two recent > Rietveld reviews. However, Google decided that despite entering a > verification code from e-mail it couldn’t confirm me