1

Topic: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Recently changed a job. On a new place the people use TFS for everything, from storage of source codes to the code-revju and tracing of tasks. Storage of source codes in TFS not strongly is pleasant to me, but with it I at the very least learned to work. And here the code-revju in TFS it simply horror awful, something almost completely . Talked to the director, suggested to buy Collaborator. Now we consider purchase, and at this time wanted to ask the public - and what is normal for the code-revju? While the best that I saw - CodeFlow from Microsoft, but it while is accessible only in Microsoft, to the indirect companies it do not sell, though like and planned. Except CodeFlow I used only Collaborator and once for a long time used Review Board. But at Review Board integration with TFS paid, like $10 a month from each developer. Now I look towards recrawling on git and usages either GitLab, or Review Board (integration with git at them free). Like Community Edition at GitLab the free. Somebody tried to use this all? How much all this convenient and reliable? I look at screenshots and is not assured yet. For the last year got used to work with Collaborator, display of comments to a side bar seems quite convenient. And at GitLab comments are displayed mixed up with the code, in rupture: Looks a little inconveniently - when I read another's code, I want to see first of all the code, and then already another's comments. At Review Board comments are displayed at induction of a mouse in a window with diff' the code: Looks a bit better. While I think to try to deliver git + review board and to send on errands it on auxiliary projects, to feel the hands. But it would be desirable to listen to judgement of colleagues. Who than uses? To me it is necessary exceptional "pre-commit" a variant, i.e.  the code before its sending in the monitoring system of versions. Preferably free, certainly. Well or not too expensive.

2

Re: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: AK> While I think to try to deliver git + review board and to send on errands it on auxiliary projects, to feel the hands. But it would be desirable to listen to judgement of colleagues. Who than uses? To me it is necessary exceptional "pre-commit" a variant, i.e.  the code before its sending in the monitoring system of versions. Preferably free, certainly. Well or not too expensive. I used Collaborator from Smartbear, quite normal product though some years ago there were problems with integration with TFS (can already , I do not know) much. Now we use also GitHub for corporate users (I do not know as to name correct this piece), like too anything.

3

Re: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Hello, kaa.python, you wrote: KP> I used Collaborator from Smartbear, quite normal product though some years ago there were problems with integration with TFS (can already , I do not know) much. Yes, I used last year Collaborator and it we and suggested to buy. But there something with the price is not clear yet. On a site $800 for a year for an enterprise-version, without restriction on an amount of users are written, wanted to order, and the colleague now tells that here these $800 it only on 5 simultaneous connections. Therefore it wanted to look that else is besides Collaborator'. KP> Now we use also GitHub for corporate users (I do not know as to name correct this piece), like too anything. The Enterprise Edition it is called. I while only on Community Edition glance. I am afraid that colleagues will abuse me for  on git - are not present at anybody time desire to make experiments and to try something new. But it still can be justified  a software for the code-revju. And if it it is necessary also to pay for all, neither colleagues nor the director do not support me.

4

Re: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: AK> Somebody tried to use this all? The best that saw for pre-kommit  is collaborator. Though also expensive, but the best all remaining more often the post-kommit and on the order is worse in the plan  than usage and UI (is banal to visualize diffs and that hardly are able) in the same review board has been somehow monstrously made  (), has been oriented on a post-kommit nevertheless did the analysis of many  about 5 years ago codeflow did not see .  5 summer prescription, for a long time did not work with such , something could appear or be refined

5

Re: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Old arguings: http://rsdn.org/forum/tools/4570952.flat the Author: 0x7be Date: 10.01.12 http://rsdn.org/forum/tools/2321450.flat the Author: DimitrySTD Date: 26.01.07

6

Re: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: AK> Storage of source codes in TFS not strongly is pleasant to me, but with it I at the very least learned to work. And here the code-revju in TFS it simply horror awful, something almost completely . Talked to the director, suggested to buy Collaborator. Now we consider purchase, and at this time wanted to ask the public - and what is normal for the code-revju? Atlassian Bitbucket (earlier Stash), but, it is necessary on git to creep. Collaborator long used. After Bitbucket' no desire on it is present to be returned.

7

Re: Code Review. Advise a normal software.

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: AK> preferably free, certainly. http://www.redmine.org/plugins/redmine_code_review