Is webrev generation still relevant?

[Joseph D. Darcy]

I also routinely use webrev for similar reasons, especially the frames view.

-Joe

On 1/18/2024 3:50 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
> On 18/01/2024 09:04, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> At the onset of Project Skara, one goal was to keep backwards 
>> compatibility with developers' workflows. For this, a Skara bot was 
>> created which generates webrevs, as closely aligned to the original 
>> ksh webrev script as possible.
>>
>> Now I believe all developers are well into the Skara/GitHub way of 
>> doing things, and I have not heard someone refer to webrevs in a long 
>> time. So my first question is:
>>
>> * Is it still relevant to continue let the Skara bots generate webrevs?
> No noise can be a sign that something is functioning smoothly and 
> efficiently.
>
> I almost always use webrevs in preference to the github changes. The 
> different viewing options, in particular the frames view, give me a 
> much better overview of what is being changed.
>
> For me webrevs are essential when a large complex change is made. Just 
> to give two recent examples, I would have found it much harder to 
> review the recent AArch64 poly1305 changes or the changes to the 
> ConstantPoolCache field entries without a webrev. These both involved 
> adding multiple changes sets per file and correlating those changes 
> via the github UI is very difficult. The frames view allows you to 
> skip back and forwards in both new and old code to see how a suite of 
> changes relate to each other *and* to the *unchanged* code.
>
> regards,
>
>
> Andrew Dinn
> -----------
>
> Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill
>