stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: [Fwd: JIRA now hooked up to Fisheye]
Date Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:28:55 GMT
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.  :)
>>  >
>>  >
>> 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 ;-)


View raw message