On 09/03/2015 09:18 AM, Joe Hillenbrand wrote:
As a wild idea -- did anyone look at /Gitlab/ instead?
My personal experience with Gitlab at a previous job is that it is extremely unstable. I'd say even more unstable than trac and phabricator. It's especially bad when dealing with long files.
If we're talking alternative systems, then I can personally recommend Gerrit (https://www.gerritcodereview.com/) which, while it *looks* pretty basic, it works really well with the general Git workflow. For example, it tracks commits in individual reviews, but tracks dependencies between those commits. So when e.g. you push a new series of commits implementing a feature, all those reviews just get a new "version" and you can diff between different versions of each individual commit -- this often cuts down drastically on how much you have to re-review when a new version is submitted. You can also specify auto-merge when a review gets +2 (or +1, or whatever), including rebase-before-merge-and-ff instead of having merge commits which just clutter the history needlessly. You can set up various rules using a predicate-based rules engine, for example about a review needing two approvals and/or always needing approval from an (external) build system, etc. The only setup it needs in a git hook... which it will tell you exactly how to install with a single command when you push your first review. (It's some scp command, I seem to recall.) Caveat: I haven't tried using it on Windows. Regards,