Code Review Tool Proposal: Upsource

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Igniters,

We have set up Upsource code review tool at
http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/

I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.


* Why?
Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
review tool will probably agree:

- No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work. You
can see the code in one click.
- All current reviews are easily accessible
- Multiple reviewers
- Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point can
be discussed and accepted separately
- Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
reviews there without opening the browser at all


* Why Upsource?
I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
Phabricator, Crucible),
and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
- PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can be
created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
commits (fix review issues)
- Good Java support and IDEA integration
- Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
struggle with it)


Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,

Pavel

[Anton Vinogradov]

+1

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
>
> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
>
>
> * Why?
> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
> review tool will probably agree:
>
> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work. You
> can see the code in one click.
> - All current reviews are easily accessible
> - Multiple reviewers
> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point can
> be discussed and accepted separately
> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
> reviews there without opening the browser at all
>
>
> * Why Upsource?
> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> Phabricator, Crucible),
> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can be
> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> commits (fix review issues)
> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
> struggle with it)
>
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pavel
>

[agura]

+1

Great tool.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> >
> > I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
> >
> >
> > * Why?
> > Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
> > review tool will probably agree:
> >
> > - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work. You
> > can see the code in one click.
> > - All current reviews are easily accessible
> > - Multiple reviewers
> > - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point can
> > be discussed and accepted separately
> > - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
> > reviews there without opening the browser at all
> >
> >
> > * Why Upsource?
> > I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> > Phabricator, Crucible),
> > and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> > - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can
> be
> > created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> > commits (fix review issues)
> > - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> > - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
> > struggle with it)
> >
> >
> > Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pavel
> >
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Hi Pavel,

Very good idea! This will make review process transparent and more
community-friendly. So huge +1.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Andrey Gura <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> Great tool.
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> > >
> > > I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
> > >
> > >
> > > * Why?
> > > Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used
> a
> > > review tool will probably agree:
> > >
> > > - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work.
> You
> > > can see the code in one click.
> > > - All current reviews are easily accessible
> > > - Multiple reviewers
> > > - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point
> can
> > > be discussed and accepted separately
> > > - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
> > > reviews there without opening the browser at all
> > >
> > >
> > > * Why Upsource?
> > > I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> > > Phabricator, Crucible),
> > > and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> > > - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can
> > be
> > > created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> > > commits (fix review issues)
> > > - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> > > - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible
> really
> > > struggle with it)
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pavel
> > >
> >
>

[Denis Magda]

Pavel,

How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who want to ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the pull-requests automatically?

Cos, Raul, Others,

How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience, are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for review process?

—
Denis

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
>
> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
>
>
> * Why?
> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
> review tool will probably agree:
>
> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work. You
> can see the code in one click.
> - All current reviews are easily accessible
> - Multiple reviewers
> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point can
> be discussed and accepted separately
> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
> reviews there without opening the browser at all
>
>
> * Why Upsource?
> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> Phabricator, Crucible),
> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can be
> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> commits (fix review issues)
> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
> struggle with it)
>
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pavel

[Michael André Pearce]

Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?

Code is there anyhow...

I've found this seems to be the way a lot of projects have gone.

It allows me to review the code without checkout

I can comment inline with a pr or code commit

I can fork a project to my own space and create a pr back to the main repo

It updates when I make a commit

Supports multiple reviewers.

Eco system of bots

It doesn't tie me into a commercial ide tool (I love IntelliJ like the next person, but appreciate it is a commercial tool I have to pay for for all the bells and whistles)

Rgds
Mike

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 17:03, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Pavel,
>
> How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who want to ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the pull-requests automatically?
>
> Cos, Raul, Others,
>
> How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience, are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for review process?
>
> —
> Denis
>
>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Igniters,
>>
>> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
>>
>> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
>>
>>
>> * Why?
>> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
>> review tool will probably agree:
>>
>> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work. You
>> can see the code in one click.
>> - All current reviews are easily accessible
>> - Multiple reviewers
>> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point can
>> be discussed and accepted separately
>> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
>> reviews there without opening the browser at all
>>
>>
>> * Why Upsource?
>> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
>> Phabricator, Crucible),
>> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
>> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can be
>> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
>> commits (fix review issues)
>> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
>> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
>> struggle with it)
>>
>>
>> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pavel
>

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Denis,

Contributors will have to start a review on branch or pull request manually
(a couple of clicks really), then attach an URL to the JIRA ticket.
Example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4116

> are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool
for review process
Some projects use Crucible: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/
Apache Hive used Phabricator in the past.


Mike,

> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
Nothing is wrong with GitHub, I think it is the second best option.
Still, Upsource is much nicer, so I'd like to explore this possibility.

> commercial tool I have to pay for
They provide open source license. We license TeamCity this way.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael André Pearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
>
> Code is there anyhow...
>
> I've found this seems to be the way a lot of projects have gone.
>
> It allows me to review the code without checkout
>
> I can comment inline with a pr or code commit
>
> I can fork a project to my own space and create a pr back to the main repo
>
> It updates when I make a commit
>
> Supports multiple reviewers.
>
> Eco system of bots
>
> It doesn't tie me into a commercial ide tool (I love IntelliJ like the
> next person, but appreciate it is a commercial tool I have to pay for for
> all the bells and whistles)
>
> Rgds
> Mike
>
> > On 14 Nov 2016, at 17:03, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Pavel,
> >
> > How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches
> to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who want to
> ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the
> pull-requests automatically?
> >
> > Cos, Raul, Others,
> >
> > How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience, are
> there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for
> review process?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Igniters,
> >>
> >> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> >>
> >> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
> >>
> >>
> >> * Why?
> >> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
> >> review tool will probably agree:
> >>
> >> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work.
> You
> >> can see the code in one click.
> >> - All current reviews are easily accessible
> >> - Multiple reviewers
> >> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point
> can
> >> be discussed and accepted separately
> >> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
> >> reviews there without opening the browser at all
> >>
> >>
> >> * Why Upsource?
> >> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> >> Phabricator, Crucible),
> >> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> >> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can
> be
> >> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> >> commits (fix review issues)
> >> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> >> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
> >> struggle with it)
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Pavel
> >
>

[Sergi]

I'd say that Github may be good for small changes, but when you trying to
review a big PR (like 100 files) it becomes almost unusable, because it
loads everything in one shot with no convenient navigation.

Also it happened to me that I lost some of my review comments on Github for
no obvious reason. It was really disappointing.

Thus I hope Upsource will do a better job here.

Anyways, I don't think we are going to enforce everyone to use Upsource, it
is just another tool in addition to existing ones.

Sergi

2016-11-14 22:16 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:

> Denis,
>
> Contributors will have to start a review on branch or pull request manually
> (a couple of clicks really), then attach an URL to the JIRA ticket.
> Example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4116
>
> > are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool
> for review process
> Some projects use Crucible: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/
> Apache Hive used Phabricator in the past.
>
>
> Mike,
>
> > Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
> Nothing is wrong with GitHub, I think it is the second best option.
> Still, Upsource is much nicer, so I'd like to explore this possibility.
>
> > commercial tool I have to pay for
> They provide open source license. We license TeamCity this way.
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
> >
> > Code is there anyhow...
> >
> > I've found this seems to be the way a lot of projects have gone.
> >
> > It allows me to review the code without checkout
> >
> > I can comment inline with a pr or code commit
> >
> > I can fork a project to my own space and create a pr back to the main
> repo
> >
> > It updates when I make a commit
> >
> > Supports multiple reviewers.
> >
> > Eco system of bots
> >
> > It doesn't tie me into a commercial ide tool (I love IntelliJ like the
> > next person, but appreciate it is a commercial tool I have to pay for for
> > all the bells and whistles)
> >
> > Rgds
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 14 Nov 2016, at 17:03, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches
> > to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who want
> to
> > ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the
> > pull-requests automatically?
> > >
> > > Cos, Raul, Others,
> > >
> > > How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience,
> are
> > there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for
> > review process?
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Igniters,
> > >>
> > >> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> > >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> > >>
> > >> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> * Why?
> > >> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have
> used a
> > >> review tool will probably agree:
> > >>
> > >> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work.
> > You
> > >> can see the code in one click.
> > >> - All current reviews are easily accessible
> > >> - Multiple reviewers
> > >> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point
> > can
> > >> be discussed and accepted separately
> > >> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see
> the
> > >> reviews there without opening the browser at all
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> * Why Upsource?
> > >> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> > >> Phabricator, Crucible),
> > >> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> > >> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR
> can
> > be
> > >> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> > >> commits (fix review issues)
> > >> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> > >> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible
> really
> > >> struggle with it)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Pavel
> > >
> >
>

[dmagda]

Pavel,

Makes sense to me. Let’s start the voting process then adding the link to this discussion to the voting thread.
I would wait no less than 5 days giving a chance to everyone to share his/her opinion.

—
Denis

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
> Contributors will have to start a review on branch or pull request manually
> (a couple of clicks really), then attach an URL to the JIRA ticket.
> Example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4116
>
>> are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool
> for review process
> Some projects use Crucible: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/
> Apache Hive used Phabricator in the past.
>
>
> Mike,
>
>> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
> Nothing is wrong with GitHub, I think it is the second best option.
> Still, Upsource is much nicer, so I'd like to explore this possibility.
>
>> commercial tool I have to pay for
> They provide open source license. We license TeamCity this way.
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
>>
>> Code is there anyhow...
>>
>> I've found this seems to be the way a lot of projects have gone.
>>
>> It allows me to review the code without checkout
>>
>> I can comment inline with a pr or code commit
>>
>> I can fork a project to my own space and create a pr back to the main repo
>>
>> It updates when I make a commit
>>
>> Supports multiple reviewers.
>>
>> Eco system of bots
>>
>> It doesn't tie me into a commercial ide tool (I love IntelliJ like the
>> next person, but appreciate it is a commercial tool I have to pay for for
>> all the bells and whistles)
>>
>> Rgds
>> Mike
>>
>>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 17:03, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Pavel,
>>>
>>> How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches
>> to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who want to
>> ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the
>> pull-requests automatically?
>>>
>>> Cos, Raul, Others,
>>>
>>> How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience, are
>> there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for
>> review process?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Igniters,
>>>>
>>>> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
>>>>
>>>> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Why?
>>>> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have used a
>>>> review tool will probably agree:
>>>>
>>>> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work.
>> You
>>>> can see the code in one click.
>>>> - All current reviews are easily accessible
>>>> - Multiple reviewers
>>>> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point
>> can
>>>> be discussed and accepted separately
>>>> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see the
>>>> reviews there without opening the browser at all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Why Upsource?
>>>> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
>>>> Phabricator, Crucible),
>>>> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
>>>> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR can
>> be
>>>> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
>>>> commits (fix review issues)
>>>> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
>>>> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible really
>>>> struggle with it)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Pavel
>>>
>>

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

I've started the vote.

Meanwhile, we have reached the user limit in the evaluation version.
Some people report that they can't register; we will request proper
open-source license as soon as the vote succeeds.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> Makes sense to me. Let’s start the voting process then adding the link to
> this discussion to the voting thread.
> I would wait no less than 5 days giving a chance to everyone to share
> his/her opinion.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> > Contributors will have to start a review on branch or pull request
> manually
> > (a couple of clicks really), then attach an URL to the JIRA ticket.
> > Example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4116
> >
> >> are there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool
> > for review process
> > Some projects use Crucible: https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/
> > Apache Hive used Phabricator in the past.
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> >> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
> > Nothing is wrong with GitHub, I think it is the second best option.
> > Still, Upsource is much nicer, so I'd like to explore this possibility.
> >
> >> commercial tool I have to pay for
> > They provide open source license. We license TeamCity this way.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael André Pearce <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why not / what is wrong with GitHub?
> >>
> >> Code is there anyhow...
> >>
> >> I've found this seems to be the way a lot of projects have gone.
> >>
> >> It allows me to review the code without checkout
> >>
> >> I can comment inline with a pr or code commit
> >>
> >> I can fork a project to my own space and create a pr back to the main
> repo
> >>
> >> It updates when I make a commit
> >>
> >> Supports multiple reviewers.
> >>
> >> Eco system of bots
> >>
> >> It doesn't tie me into a commercial ide tool (I love IntelliJ like the
> >> next person, but appreciate it is a commercial tool I have to pay for
> for
> >> all the bells and whistles)
> >>
> >> Rgds
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 17:03, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Pavel,
> >>>
> >>> How will the contribution process be affected if the community switches
> >> to Upsource? Will Upsource introduce additional steps for those who
> want to
> >> ask someone to review a branch or the tool simply intercepts all the
> >> pull-requests automatically?
> >>>
> >>> Cos, Raul, Others,
> >>>
> >>> How this intention is aligned with Apache at all? In you experience,
> are
> >> there any examples of Apache projects that used some 3rd party tool for
> >> review process?
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Igniters,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have set up Upsource code review tool at
> >>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose to evaluate it and see if it works for us.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> * Why?
> >>>> Current JIRA-based process is not very efficient. Anyone who have
> used a
> >>>> review tool will probably agree:
> >>>>
> >>>> - No need to switch branches locally and interrupt your current work.
> >> You
> >>>> can see the code in one click.
> >>>> - All current reviews are easily accessible
> >>>> - Multiple reviewers
> >>>> - Much better discussions: comments are right in the code; each point
> >> can
> >>>> be discussed and accepted separately
> >>>> - Integrates with IDEA - open the diff in IDEA in one click, or see
> the
> >>>> reviews there without opening the browser at all
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> * Why Upsource?
> >>>> I've evaluated a bunch of tools (CodeCollaborator, ReviewBoard,
> >>>> Phabricator, Crucible),
> >>>> and Upsource looks like the best fit for us:
> >>>> - PR-based code reviews. This is a major advantage: review for a PR
> can
> >> be
> >>>> created in one click, and it updates automatically when you push more
> >>>> commits (fix review issues)
> >>>> - Good Java support and IDEA integration
> >>>> - Good performance (our code base is big, and tools like Crucible
> really
> >>>> struggle with it)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Pavel
> >>>
> >>
>
>