On 12/02/2014 02:47 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org >> <mailto:guido at python.org>> wrote: >> >> Before anyone gets too excited about Rietveld (which I originally >> wrote as an APp Engine demo), AFAIK we're using a fork that only >> Martin von Loewis can maintain -- and it's a dead-end fork because the >> Rietveld project itself only supports App Engine, but Martin's fork >> runs on our own server infrastructure. These environments are *very* >> different (App Engine has its own unique noSQL API) and it took a >> major hack (not by MvL) to get it to work outside App Engine. That >> fork is not supported, and hence our Rietveld installation still has >> various bugs that have long been squashed in the main Rietveld repo. >> (And no, I don't have time to help with this -- my recommendation is >> to move off Rietveld to something supported.) > > It probably makes sense to include code reviews in the matrix of what > tools we’re going to use then yea? > > Like Github/Bitbucket/etc have review built in. Other tools like > Phabricator do as well but are self hosted instead. I think the people/company behind phabricator are planning to offer an hosting solution. Could be worth poking at them to have and idea of what is the status of it. -- Pierre-Yves David
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4