← Back to context

Comment by strongpigeon

3 days ago

Only somewhat related, but I'd pay decent money to have access to the whole Piper/CitC/Critique/Code Search stack. As much as I've tried to like it, I just don't really like Github's code review tool.

12 comments

strongpigeon

Reply
awkward  3 days ago

Github's code review tool is uniquely bad. Notably it presents every comment as blocking and requiring sign off - even a "Glad someone cleaned this up! <thumbs up emoji>" needs clearing before merge.

It also has some UX snafus that cause reviewers to write a number of comments and then forget to publish any of them, leading to a lot of interactions along the lines of "I thought you were going to review my PR?" "I already did?"

  • plorkyeran  3 days ago

    Requiring every comment to be resolved is not a standard part of GitHub’s code review system. That is something which your organization has gone out of its way to require.

    • awkward  2 days ago

      This has been consistent across four organizations including one I participated in setting up. They don't seem to have gone far out of their way.

  • etothet  2 days ago

    Overall, I personally find the experience better than Gitlab's merge request UI/UX.

mtlynch  3 days ago

Former Googler. I also miss Critique/Gerrit. I've tried a bunch of alternatives, and I like CodeApprove:

https://codeapprove.com/

It's great if you have a team that does code reviews. It works less well for reviewing contributions from external contributors on an open-source project,a as the contributor likely just wants to get their PR merged and doesn't want to learn a special reviewing tool.

No affiliation, just a happy customer.

codeapprove  3 days ago

Shameless plug but since you asked ... CodeApprove (https://codeapprove.com) is probably the closest thing you can get to Critique on GitHub. It doesn't help with the Piper/CitC/Code Search parts though, and I agree those were excellent.