|
|
|
|
|
by sagichmal
4235 days ago
|
|
> Still, both lack a lot of basic issue tracker and code
> review features.
I strongly disagree. What you might consider "basic features" I'd consider antifeatures. The bare simplicity of the issue tracker is precisely why I use it for my (large) projects. The PR model of code review scales elegantly to hundreds of contributors. I'd be devastated to see GitHub's collaboration tools move even a step toward the hellscape that is JIRA. |
|
* The ability to mark which commits/files have been reviewed and so track progress.
* The ability to distinguish resolved and unresolved issues
* The ability to assign a reviewer based on which code is being altered in the PR.
* Useful handling of history rewriting during review.
I also think that the PR model could be implemented in a way that would make for better collaboration. At the moment, if someone submits a PR that has some issues and you want to help them fix those issues it's a huge pain because the commits typically live in their fork to which others usually don't have push access. It would be a considerable improvement if PR branches were set up in such a way that both the original submitter and the people with commit access to upstream could push to the review branch.