getting ready for the sprint - code review with hg

[Steve Losh]

On Feb 3, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Nicolas Chauvat  
<nicolas.chauvat at logilab.fr> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:33:36PM -0500, Steve Losh wrote:
>> Oops, I hit send before including the link.
>>
>> My hg-review extension is getting close to usable, though I haven't
>> tackled MQ patches yet. The project is at
>> http://bitbucket.org/sjl/hg-review -- I still need to write nice
>> documentation for it but there a a bunch of pages on the project wiki
>> explaining how it works.
>
> http://bitbucket.org/sjl/hg-review/wiki/Workflow is quite
> interesting. Using this extension to review mq patches could nicely
> solve my use-case. Any preferred way for me to help make progress
> happen on this front?

Tell me what workflow you'd like to use for reviewing MQ patches. I  
don't use them enough to really have a handle on what people need.

Would people need to review "iterations" of patches?

Say I craft a patch and you review it and say X and Y need to be  
changed. I make those changes and want it reviewed again.

Would you want to see/comment on the brand new fresh patch as a whole  
or would you want to only see/comment on "how the patch changed" (i.e.  
the diff of the diff)?

How can we uniquely identify a patch across "iterations"? Is the  
filename good enough?

We should chat about it at the sprint for a few minutes at least. I  
think having a useful, offline-capable code review tool for Mercurial  
would be very nice -- I just need more input on what would actually  
make it "useful".

> I will try to sum  things up into a 5' presentation I could give at  
> the
> sprint to get other people interested in this.
>
> -- 
> Nicolas Chauvat
>
> logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de  
> connaissances