
Codebrag – Daily code review tool - dcu
https://github.com/softwaremill/codebrag
======
FanaHOVA
How's this better than Github's review? Must be a pretty big reason to add a
new tool to our team's flow.

------
brudgers
Original 'Show HN':
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7772085](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7772085)

------
pseudoramble
Where I work we use Bitbucket for code reviews. Their code review setup works
well for us. We especially enjoy the "like" button that Codebrag also seems to
have. It doesn't seem like Codebrag is very much different from this though.

A big way to differentiate for me would be if you could create "groups" or
"teams" of reviewers. Say we have three teams sharing a code base. We could
create a group for each of those teams. Then when someone opens a review I add
the groups I need to look at it instead of the individuals on those teams.

One question I would have too is what is a "commit" in Codebrag? Is it
literally review commit-by-commit, or is it more like a Pull Request in
Github/Bitbucket terms? If it's the latter, I would rename it to not make the
terms confusing.

------
neandrake
Has there been a recent update with Codebrag? I try to keep an eye on the
available code review tools and this one was last updated a while back. The
last release/commit/tweet was last June.

~~~
marcinkuzminski
Have you seen this too ?
[https://rhodecode.com/blog/123/rhodecode-460-release-new-
app...](https://rhodecode.com/blog/123/rhodecode-460-release-new-approach-to-
code-review)

~~~
neandrake
Yea I saw that was recently updated. I'm excited to see tooling be updated for
Mercurial. I was hoping the recent updates and re-release as open source of
RhodeCode would spur some updates from the Kallithea project.

------
tedmiston
It looks about the same as GitLab's merge request / code review feature to me.
The being able to dismiss a commit is different, but I'm not sure I understand
that feature.

When I'm doing a big review, I copy the list of files into a text document and
check them off after I finish each one. I've found that especially useful when
the order of the files requires a lot of jumping around to follow the flow.
I'd like to see this feature supported by a code review tool.

~~~
piotrkaminski
Reviewable supports per-file (and per-revision) check-offs. :) (Disclosure: I
built it.)

------
partycoder
I think this overlaps a lot with what github is already offering.

In github you can start a code review from a comment, mark a review as
blocking, require at least an approving review prior to merge, etc... You can
also add hooks for automated tests, etc.

------
falcolas
Really needs a screencast or similar; I get what the tool is for, but it's
really hard to see why or how it works without investing time and effort in
setting it up and running it myself.

~~~
tedmiston
There is one, but it's several clicks away.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-ahIZCBzr8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-ahIZCBzr8)

~~~
andrewem
That video would be much more compelling to me if it had narration, and
explained why the basic concept of their product is better (for at least some
cases) than the built-in code review features on GitHub and similar services.
Or maybe their target audience is teams that aren't doing any code review, in
which case they ought to explain how it would work for them.

------
polskibus
How does this compare to Phabricator? What's the best open source tool for
code review these days ?

~~~
prds
How about gerrit?

------
strictfp
How does non-blocking work? I'm interested in this, but didn't find much info.

~~~
allendoerfer
You do not review pull requests, but stream of commits. The code author then
gets a stream of reviews.

