-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
I believe their docs cover the scenario of reviewing someone's code by pushing your review to the git repo, and others can use `git appraise list` to see open pull requests.
https://github.com/google/git-appraise/blob/master/docs/tuto...
A trivial git-hook could be setup for automating email notifications.
I tried https://github.com/google/git-appraise-web, with a review made only locally, not pushed to the remote, but it doesn't seem to work. Did I miss something? I went up to accepting the request, so the command line is working, but the web GUI - at each step - only shows a closed request [0], and clicking on it gives an empty page.
[0] https://ibb.co/HTg8Jfc
Very tangential:
Gerrit also stores some of its configs in a git repo. I was setting up a new instance, but couldn't get Admin permissions because the way my auth front-end didn't play well with the docker image's assumptions.
Gerrit already does a lot of its work via non-standard references. For example, you don't push to a branch, `refs/branches/foo`, you push to a separate `refs/for/foo` namespace that creates the review.
Similarly, Group config is stored in the All-Users git repo [1], but in references created after a UUID, in `refs/groups/UU/UUID`.
I ended up having a to exercise the plumbiest of plumbing commands [2] to create a new commit from scratch (from a tree, from the index, from blobs), to update the group ref to add myself to the Administrators group (this, of course, requires a local shell and permissions on the Gerrit host). It was a great way to exercise what I had learned in Git from the Bottom Up [3]
[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-...
[2] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-Objects
[3] https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/
please make a pull request to add this to awesome git lists, like https://github.com/stevemao/awesome-git-addons for example! this is so cool
There was an attempt at some point to build decentralized issue tracking into git: https://github.com/duplys/git-issues
I was always a bit disappointed that it didn't catch on, but I realize it would require a UI and probably buy-in from companies like Github and Gitlab, whose whole business is based around the lack of these features in git, so it was DoA, unfortunately.
As a sort of spiritual successor to git-appraise, I've been working on git-bug[1] which support issues and will at some point support kanban and code review. There is a few notables improvements:
- CRDT-like reusable data structure [2][3] for true p2p workflow and easily create new entities (code review ...)
- bidirectional bridges to github, gitlab ... to ease the transition or just use git-bug as a complement of those platform
- CLI, terminal UI and web UI, for different taste and integrate into your tooling/workflow
[1]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug
[2]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/blob/master/doc/model...
[3]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/blob/master/entity/da...
> All these workflows are a derivation of the source in the repository and keeping them close together has a great aesthetic.
I agree. Version control is a great enabler, so using it to track "sources" other than just code can be useful. A couple of tools I like to use:
- Artemis, for tracking issues http://www.chriswarbo.net/blog/2017-06-14-artemis.html
- ASV, for tracking benchmark results https://github.com/airspeed-velocity/asv (I use this for non-Python projects via my asv-nix plugin http://www.chriswarbo.net/projects/nixos/asv_benchmarking.ht... )
> I agree that e-mail is not perfect, but... how is GitHub better?
Please look at my comment again. I prefer email to locked in forges.
> Devs like new shiny toys, and e-mails are old technology
There is one aspect where such forges have an advantage over email - a better user experience. Aerc and the likes all good - but Github and others provide a good user experience over a tool that everyone uses - the web browser.
> we should have something better than e-mail in 2023
We really should have something better than email. I'm saying this as someone who operates a personal mail server and a bunch of desktop services for it. It's really hard to get the setup correct.
In that context, it's worth looking at forgefed (https://forgefed.org/). It's a protocol for federating forges like Gitea and Gitlab. It's built on top of ActivityPub - which behaves a bit like email (it has inboxes and outboxes for every user). From the spec, it seems like pull requests happen by sending patches to the destination forge.
> Nobody takes the time to try the e-mail workflow (even though it's really two git commands)
Email workflow seems simple. But there are two things that make it complicated:
1. The patches don't specify the commits they apply to. It's simply assumed that they apply to the head of the main branch. The commits have to be carefully rebased on the main branch before sending the patches. It could otherwise lead to conflicts and a lot of wasted time.
2. Each commit/patch is send as a single email. Developers usually make frequent commits when they develop. Such patches can be confusing and hellish to review. A sane patchset requires the developers to edit the commit history, usually using interactive rebases. Each commit should contain a single feature and shouldn't break the build.
I consider both the above to be good development practices and follow them even on my personal projects. However, this is an additional barrier to entry. In fact, this may be a bigger problem for many than setting up git for email.
Here's a script I use for this. It's designed for use with github. Run it in your copy of a repo with a PR number and it will create a 'review' branch that has the changes uncommitted. Works great with IDEs with a good diff experience.
https://github.com/whenceforth/local-code-review
Related posts
-
Let's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Option
-
🔑 enc: A modern and friendly CLI alternative to GnuPG. Generate and download keys, encrypt, decrypt, and sign text and files, and more.
-
What comes after Git? It's been 15 years since it was created. SVN was created 5 years before Git. CVS was 15 years before SVN
-
Version Control Beyond Git
-
Dicas e configurações para seu sistema linux