On 6/1/2011 10:14 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrew Sutton wrote:
Unlike previous reviews, this review will be assisted by a code review application, Code Collaborator (by SmartBear). The product was tested during a BoostCon session, and we are eager to see how well it scales to a community review. You can use the link below to access and review the Heap library.
<http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=4>
Just a quick addendum on this topic... If you are interested in reviewing, you should register as a user here:
http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/
You can be formally added as a reviewer to any current review by the author or (I think) any other reviewer. I may be wrong about the latter, but I was able to add another reviewer this morning.
Two additional points:
1. Most participating via Code Collaborator should be "observers," not "reviewers." The latter are expected to "accept" each comment and defect. My suggestion is that the review manager be the sole "reviewer."
2. Code Collaborator should not be used for design level discussion or for the final review message that answers the traditional questions, including whether to accept the library. Instead, Code Collaborator is for commenting on, or marking defects against, particular lines of code or documentation. There is a General Chat area, but that should be used for comments regarding the content actually uploaded, something missing that should have been uploaded, or summary comments on most of the code or documentation. Higher level discussions and formal reviews should be posted to this listed as in the past.
A tool like Code Collaborator, Crucible, etc. that supported threaded discussions and formal reviews would be ideal, but we don't have such a tool at present.
I agree with your comments above, especially this last. When I looked at Code Collaborator I was sort of amazed that the main thing missing from the tool was the ability to have comments as the main part of the review, with code review being just a part of the review. Somehow I feel they put things opposite to the way a real review works, but they seem to view reviews as code collaborations and not actual reviews/comments about software. Oh well, each tool to its own specifications, but it was definitely not for me or my idea of what a review of software is all about. I will say no more since comments under this heading should really be about the Heaps library and not about Code Collaborator.