Mercurial is bad for community code reviews

[Steve Barnes]

On 18/12/12 11:11, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012, 11:09:19 schrieb anatoly techtonik:
>> This is the most unfortunate. I wonder if it is possible to add a second
>> layer of meta information about changesets when they are merged without
>> breaking history link with original changeset?
> You could setup a workflow where the reviewers sign changesets after review.
>
> That would also reflect very well,  what the code reviewers actually do.
>
> To start it in a currently active project, get the maintainer to sign a given
> release and then require everyone who accepts a pull-request to sign it.
>
> To make that simpler, add a hook which enforces that all pushed heads are
> signed:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/hghooklib/wiki/CheckGpgSig
>
> The effect is that
>
> (a) You get a safer workflow (everything is signed with GnuPG)
> (b) The reviewers get credit for what they actually do: Sign off changes
>
> To make this more convenient it could be useful to have an extension which can
> check from whoma given changeset was signed off: Just check for the
> topologically next signature(s) after the changeset.
>
> hg reviewer REV ? who committed and signed the signature(s) for this REV
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne
> --
> Ein Würfel System - einfach saubere Regeln:
>
> - http://1w6.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
You could also take a look at Review Board, http://www.reviewboard.org 
<http://www.reviewboard.org/>, it seems to be quite git biased but can 
be set up for Mercurial as well.

I have not yet tried it myself but it looks good based on the web site.

Gadget/Steve


-- 
Steve <I>Gadget</I> Barnes

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20121218/496f1bf4/attachment-0002.html>