Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 74352 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2008 21:29:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2008 21:29:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 74911 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2008 21:29:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 74900 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2008 21:29:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 74891 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2008 21:29:25 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:29:25 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of msebor@gmail.com designates 216.239.58.188 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.239.58.188] (HELO gv-out-0910.google.com) (216.239.58.188) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:28:51 +0000 Received: by gv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e6so107912gvc.33 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:28:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; bh=kGU0zn1GG3kESfcQY/8QxlksYO3gf8YWL2JqW1bY4nE=; b=xldcCTomKMyeFQS10i8IQjH1jwQPqHopY3e+yMFhtDz/qVrPS8eOwpgzkH82aUJ8QnYnSrnx3vsHU3HWt3zH6Mu8lCqG/LcuhBUN8OqDTqhyyK9t5RKeYLVpIMK7dgb8JzaFJOjWg+MWhthNdsC+434VmBeLsrpL86npwrUQCa8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=Zthc1uZ/Xma2Y8dQifNhwrUYAyRev8u7o9rR+lYxv1ZoM+4PbDBCQFHfYDaw0OtuQ/NmMPtE2ka5x+noagfvAhHyJHSWkYCV9lv/cXyN96c8RuPwqrWj/Qanehk0HbtZP3CXAYata25ik76cM7jB/3KzcPznlISP4FXZwNmm/q8= Received: by 10.142.101.17 with SMTP id y17mr8095046wfb.54.1203629337659; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [71.229.200.170]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm789261wfd.4.2008.02.21.13.28.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:28:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47BDED17.40506@roguewave.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:28:55 -0700 From: Martin Sebor Organization: Rogue Wave Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: JIRA now hooked up to Fisheye] References: <47AB86F8.3090006@roguewave.com> <47ABA425.1020801@roguewave.com> <15420336.post@talk.nabble.com> <15518667.post@talk.nabble.com> <47BDD6DC.2090703@roguewave.com> <2494433f0802211254k3749e364ied08b3542da0a5d6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2494433f0802211254k3749e364ied08b3542da0a5d6@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Martin Sebor X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Mark Brown wrote: > On 2/21/08, Martin Sebor wrote: >> Eric Lemings wrote: >> > >> > I was just touring the Crucible tool, an extension to Fisheye. It >> > certainly appears more intuitive, easier to navigate, than certain >> > other code review tools I've seen lately. :) >> > >> > http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/ >> >> >> I haven't explored Crucible much but from the little I've seen it >> does look pretty nifty (like all the other tools from Atlassian). >> I've been meaning to find out if they plan to open it up for Open >> Source projects like they did with FishEye, and if so, if they >> could set us up. I know Travis is just itching to get his hands >> on another new tool ;-) > > I haven't extensive experience with code review tools but a > common complaint I've heard from people who have used > code review software for some time is that the discussions > that normally take place in email can be harder to find when > using the software. That's also my concern. Even if the tool provides good searching capabilities, it splinters the record of code review (and other such) discussions into two places: email and the code review database. That inevitably makes it more difficult to get a complete and reliable picture of the decisions made during the review and code changes in general. > > I'm also not sure that a by-invitation-only code review process > is entirely appropriate for an open source project where you > want to involve as many people as you can, not just the select > few that you happen to invite as reviewers. I admit I hadn't thought of this aspect. I'm mostly just curious about how well Crucible works since I have been quite impressed with all other Atlassian software, and if it's any better than Code Collaborator, the tool some teams use at work. Some of us find it harder to work with than just doing code reviews the old fashioned way, in email, which may be a weakness of the tool, or it may be that we're just behind the times ;-) Martin