Library Review Tool (paging Jeff Garland) -- was : Re: [xint] Formal Review Result
On 05/03/2011 09:12 AM, Matthew Chambers wrote:
On 5/3/2011 11:02 AM, Marsh Ray wrote:
On 05/02/2011 03:04 PM, Barend Gehrels wrote (in another order):
There was somebody who recently mentioned a scoreboard on this list and I now think this is a good idea, because the review manager can check if all reviews are taken into account.
Yes, please.
It would also make it more practical for an observer like me to sit down and simply read the reviews in an orderly way.
I understand that the traffic was really high, that review managers do this voluntary, everybody don't have all the time, etc.
Reviews are usually carefully written. People spend several hours on it, sometimes days. Skipping these reviews is a sad thing. Writing a library cost weeks, sometimes months or more. Forgetting reviews is a very sad thing.
Honestly, I would be more likely to help review libraries if I felt like it wouldn't be buried in the volume of the list.
This where mailing lists fall to pieces. With proper forum software, moderators could easily organize threads and change subject lines so that it would be trivial to separate actual reviews from discussion. And in fact, users would quickly adjust their behavior to fit the paradigm. Instead, we have hundreds of messages with "review" in the subject and only some of them are actual reviews, most being discussion (like this one!). :(
-Matt _______________________________________________
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again: <http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/> I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?) I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community. michael -- In the Sacramento/Folsom area? ** Profesional C++ Training mid-May ** http://www.objectmodelingdesigns.com/boostcon_deal.html Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com
On May 4, 2011, at 2:17 AM, Michael Caisse wrote:
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again:
<http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/>
I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?)
I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community.
Looks really cool. I don't think it would replace reviews on the list, but it would make the code and documentation review much, much nicer. Don't think it'll really help the part that review managers are involved with either - again if anyone has seen tools for looking at hundreds of messages in their threads and how they quote from each other, please let me know.
On 05/03/2011 11:17 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again:
<http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/>
I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?)
I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community.
michael
Some of us on IRC (Thomas Heller, Jeroen Habraken, and I) played with demo projects this past hour in both CodeCollaborator and Crucible. So far, Crucible seems the easiest to follow. The interface provides general threaded discussions also. The only thing that seems lacking at first glance is the ability to review HTML docs. Feel free to take a look and provide some feedback! http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822 The main Crucible site can be found here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/ michael -- In the Sacramento/Folsom area? ** Profesional C++ Training mid-May ** http://www.objectmodelingdesigns.com/boostcon_deal.html Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again:
<http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/
I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?)
I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community.
michael
Some of us on IRC (Thomas Heller, Jeroen Habraken, and I) played with demo projects this past hour in both CodeCollaborator and Crucible. So far, Crucible seems the easiest to follow. The interface provides general threaded discussions also. The only thing that seems lacking at first glance is the ability to review HTML docs.
Feel free to take a look and provide some feedback!
http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822
The main Crucible site can be found here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/
How permanent are those reviews? Will we be able to go back in a couple of years and see what went on? Generally mailing lists have proven to be quite resilient to websites going down, that's why I somehow prefer having all discussions here... Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser@gmail.com> wrote:
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again:
<http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/
I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?)
I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community.
michael
Some of us on IRC (Thomas Heller, Jeroen Habraken, and I) played with demo projects this past hour in both CodeCollaborator and Crucible. So far, Crucible seems the easiest to follow. The interface provides general threaded discussions also. The only thing that seems lacking at first glance is the ability to review HTML docs.
Feel free to take a look and provide some feedback!
http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822
The main Crucible site can be found here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/
How permanent are those reviews? Will we be able to go back in a couple of years and see what went on? Generally mailing lists have proven to be quite resilient to websites going down, that's why I somehow prefer having all discussions here...
If we decide to use tools like these, we most certainly need to set up our own servers. The Boost maintainer will have full control over the saved content (reviews). This is similar for having trac for bugs instead of sending patches around by mail, or having svn as source code management instead of sending tarballs around by mail. After playing around with this tool a bit, I think it has several advantages over email discussions: 1) The code can be reviewed directly. You have a code browser where reviewers can comment directly inside the code. 3) Discussions are directly related to the reviewed library. The ML discussion "noise" is gone. An implication of this is also that one can easily find information related to one specific review, without having to wade through millions of mailing list messages/threads. 4) You can see exactly how has reviewed, or will be reviewing the library. 5) You can set the review schedule in the tool, basically getting the review schedule for free. 6) It provides a "Snippet" tool similar to codepad.org which can be linked to during a review, being a persistent replacement for codepad for showing some simple code. Since crucible has a plugin system, I am pretty sure we can come up with a solution that sends the discussions going on to some boost review mailing list, serving as backup to this web interface
On May 4, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
After playing around with this tool a bit, I think it has several advantages over email discussions:
I'm a long time user of Code Collaborator (I was one of the people who recommended it to Jeff Garland for use in his company). My experience has been that Code Collaborator is great for detailed discussions about specific bits of code or documentation. It's perfect for the kind of line by line review that one sometimes gets from people like Steven Watanabe. However, I've found it less well suited for some of the more broadly scoped design discussions that sometimes arise during boost reviews. If anything, a tool like Code Collaborator can sometimes lead to an overly focused discussion of details to the exclusion of more big-picture issues. The latter especially tend to arise with large blocks of new code, which again is the common case for boost reviews. So while it is a useful tool, don't expect it to solve all of the complaints about boost's review process. And I haven't used crucible at all, so can't comment on whether it might have any features that better address global discussions.
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Michael Caisse < boost@objectmodelingdesigns.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2011 11:17 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again:
<http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/>
I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?)
I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community.
michael
Some of us on IRC (Thomas Heller, Jeroen Habraken, and I) played with demo projects this past hour in both CodeCollaborator and Crucible. So far, Crucible seems the easiest to follow. The interface provides general threaded discussions also. The only thing that seems lacking at first glance is the ability to review HTML docs.
Feel free to take a look and provide some feedback!
http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822
The main Crucible site can be found here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/
michael
--
Hi Guys - Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I'm at BoostCon now and I'm planning on running a "formal trial" on these tools while we have a face to face group. I'm working with Smartbear and hope to have something available by Tuesday. In the library in a week we will be looking for a suitable library (we don't want a pretend one) to up into the tools so we can compare them. Have one of you'all applied for the crucible community license already for Boost or do we need to do something? As for the Hartmut's issue about permanent data, we will need to figure that out. I don't think we need to run the server -- frankly I'd rather not. As long as we have control and can export the data and publish into email or other form at the end of the review that should be sufficient to protect us from companies going out of business, etc. Jeff
On 05/16/2011 04:31 AM, Jeff Garland wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Michael Caisse< boost@objectmodelingdesigns.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2011 11:17 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:
Some time ago we all had a discussion like this and I believe Jeff Garland had mentioned Smart Bear's CodeCollaborator to aid in Boost Reviews. I used their product for a short time and was just taking a look at their web site again:
<http://smartbear.com/products/development-tools/code-review/features/>
I know there are other tools also (like Crucible) but CodeCollaborator also allows reviews of html docs which will obviously be handy. IIRC Jeff had mentioned that SmartBear might be willing to provide licensing for Boost (or opensource .. it is all fuzzy). I believe Jeff was in contact with them... but my memory might be failing (Jeff?? Are you there?)
I would be willing to investigate this path further, including the administration and such of the tool, if it is of interest to the community.
michael
Some of us on IRC (Thomas Heller, Jeroen Habraken, and I) played with demo projects this past hour in both CodeCollaborator and Crucible. So far, Crucible seems the easiest to follow. The interface provides general threaded discussions also. The only thing that seems lacking at first glance is the ability to review HTML docs.
Feel free to take a look and provide some feedback!
http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822
The main Crucible site can be found here: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/
michael
--
Hi Guys -
Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I'm at BoostCon now and I'm planning on running a "formal trial" on these tools while we have a face to face group. I'm working with Smartbear and hope to have something available by Tuesday. In the library in a week we will be looking for a suitable library (we don't want a pretend one) to up into the tools so we can compare them.
Have one of you'all applied for the crucible community license already for Boost or do we need to do something?
As for the Hartmut's issue about permanent data, we will need to figure that out. I don't think we need to run the server -- frankly I'd rather not. As long as we have control and can export the data and publish into email or other form at the end of the review that should be sufficient to protect us from companies going out of business, etc.
Jeff _______________________________________________
Hi Jeff - Unfortunately I'm not able to make BoostCon this year. Have a wonderful time. I'll miss waking up early for you morning sessions. I did investigate Crucible far enough to determine that in June I would setup a Boost trial server. I have not applied for a license or anything of that sort yet. At first glance I didn't see an OpenSource hosting option. I might have missed it. I'll be looking for feedback from the BoostCon attending folks to see if this was something you were able to explore. If not, I'll setup a server in June that we can run a test on. Happy Library-In-A-Week-ing - michael -- In the Sacramento/Folsom area? ** Profesional C++ Training mid-May ** http://www.objectmodelingdesigns.com/boostcon_deal.html Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com
Hi Jeff -
Unfortunately I'm not able to make BoostCon this year. Have a wonderful time. I'll miss waking up early for you morning sessions.
Sorry we will miss you :-(
I did investigate Crucible far enough to determine that in June I would setup a Boost trial server. I have not applied for a license or anything of that sort yet. At first glance I didn't see an OpenSource hosting option. I might have missed it.
According to: http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/pricing.jsp Crucible is free for use<http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/licensing.jsp#nonprofit>by official non-profit organisations, charities and open source projects. But for now we could just create one on their demo server like you'all did, right? The SmartBear people have setup a server for us so we will be trying out code collaborator over the course of the conference. Jeff
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Jeff Garland <azswdude@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jeff -
Unfortunately I'm not able to make BoostCon this year. Have a wonderful time. I'll miss waking up early for you morning sessions.
Sorry we will miss you :-(
I did investigate Crucible far enough to determine that in June I would setup a Boost trial server. I have not applied for a license or anything of that sort yet. At first glance I didn't see an OpenSource hosting option. I might have missed it.
According to:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/pricing.jsp
Crucible is free for use<http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/licensing.jsp#nonprofit>by official non-profit organisations, charities and open source projects.
But for now we could just create one on their demo server like you'all did, right?
The SmartBear people have setup a server for us so we will be trying out code collaborator over the course of the conference.
I am strongly in favor of crucible. It has the richer interface. Compare for yourself: Smartbear Demo: http://demo.smartbear.com/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=631 Crucible Demo: http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822 Regards, Thomas
I am strongly in favor of crucible. It has the richer interface. Compare for yourself: Smartbear Demo: http://demo.smartbear.com/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=631 Crucible Demo: http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822
That's fine -- I already saw the demo. What I was asking is for a pointer on how to create a review on the crucible demo site -- I'm not seeing a way to do that. We want to put up the same review in both Code Collaborator and Crucible so we can see what it looks like. Jeff
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jeff Garland <azswdude@gmail.com> wrote:
I am strongly in favor of crucible. It has the richer interface. Compare for yourself: Smartbear Demo: http://demo.smartbear.com/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=631 Crucible Demo: http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/CR-822
That's fine -- I already saw the demo. What I was asking is for a pointer on how to create a review on the crucible demo site -- I'm not seeing a way to do that. We want to put up the same review in both Code Collaborator and Crucible so we can see what it looks like.
Oh, right for the crucible sandbox you need to 1) register: http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/login/signup.do 2) login: http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/login 3) create the review: http://sandbox.fisheye.atlassian.com/cru/createReview Note that the crucible sandbox of course has no idea of where to look for the boost svn. So you need to manually upload the files you want to review. I have no idea how it will work for Code Collaborator. Best Regards, Thomas
Thomas Heller wrote:
I am strongly in favor of crucible. It has the richer interface.
I spent some time with Code Collaborator at BoostCon. I just now looked at Crucible. The latter has a couple of apparent deficiencies WRT the former. The inline comments don't appear to be collapsible and can consume a great deal of screen space, thereby separating one line of code from the next. That will make code reviews harder. The other problem is that the file list in the sidebar does not, appear to support a directory structure so I wonder whether it can handle same-named files from distinct directories being part of a single review and, if it can, will that prove confusing. Code Collaborator has some issues, too, but they are less troublesome than what I've noted for Crucible, based upon my experience. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer using std::disclaimer; Dev Tools & Components Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Thomas Heller wrote:
I am strongly in favor of crucible. It has the richer interface.
I spent some time with Code Collaborator at BoostCon. I just now looked at Crucible. The latter has a couple of apparent deficiencies WRT the former. The inline comments don't appear to be collapsible and can consume a great deal of screen space, thereby separating one line of code from the next. That will make code reviews harder. The other problem is that the file list in the sidebar does not, appear to support a directory structure so I wonder whether it can handle same-named files from distinct directories being part of a single review and, if it can, will that prove confusing.
Code Collaborator has some issues, too, but they are less troublesome than what I've noted for Crucible, based upon my experience.
Crucible's inline comments really bothered me as well. You can set it to other options (above/hidden) but neither works well either. There doesn't appear to be the nice option of 'on the side' a la Code Collaborator. Otherwise I liked - aesthetically - Crucible's clean lines interface, but the comment positioning was a real deal breaker to me. Tony
participants (8)
-
Gordon Woodhull -
Gottlob Frege -
Hartmut Kaiser -
Jeff Garland -
Kim Barrett -
Michael Caisse -
Stewart, Robert -
Thomas Heller