Publishing code reviews

[Dmitri Trembovetski]

Mark Reinhold wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:01:48 -0700
>> From: dmitri.trembovetski at sun.com
> 
>>    what about moving one of our our internal code review tools
>>    to an outside server?
>>
>>    Like the one the client team uses - the 'code review robot'.
>>    You submit the code review either via email or web page.
>>    The webrev is then hosted on the "robot system" so the reviewers
>>    can see it.
>>
>>    The communication between the reviewers happens via email, the
>>    robot is CC-ed. The tool supports multiple fix revisions,
>>    approvals, etc.
>>
>>    It will probably need some polishing up - since currently
>>    there's no authentication, for example, but it's been used
>>    by many people for a long time and is found to be very
>>    convenient if not as flashy as Mondrian and some ajaxy tools..
> 
> A fine idea, but I see two problems.
> 
> One is the polishing-up bit -- that's more work than setting up a simple
> rsync-driven web server.  It'd be great for the robot to be made publicly
> available eventually, but right now I think expedience demands
> simplicity.

   If that's the case, just don't do any polishing up for now.

   It would take some effort to migrate the system to another
   machine (Igor Kushnirsky would know how much effort that
   would take).

   But the robot - especially it's built-in archive
   feature (all review-related conversations are archived,
   along with webrevs) - proved invaluable.

> The other is that some JDK developers, well, just don't like the robot.
> So we'd need to either convince people to use it anyway, which would take
> time if it's possible at all, or else provide something simpler ... like
> the OpenSolaris service.

   What about the JDK developers who would not like the OpenSolaris
   service? I would wager that they will be the majority =)

> If we do create an OpenSolaris-style code-review server then we should
> certainly arrange for the robot to publish webrevs there.  That can't be
> hard.

   Yes, that would be good in any case.
   Would we need to somehow filter out the webrevs which
   contain closed sources?

   Thanks,
     Dmitri