Hi guys. I have a question about MR review process. We are using another tool for code review for now and it allows us to handle pretty long reviews (many iterations) convenient enough. For example it tracks review status for each reviewer: it can be New (unwatched) or processed (watched) with or without reaction (approve/decline). Also it tracks files and commits I already reviewed. So when new commits are added to the review (MR) I can see and comment only new parts.
I’m trying to get something similar with gitlab MR, but I cannot find such tracking things. For example if I leave a comment on some code and author changed the code according to comment a cannot see my comments in new code. Moreover I have to look at entire MR again as it shows the most recent state. I can compare with different version, but in this comparison I cannot leave a comments.
In the MR list I cannot see the state of all these MRs. I have to iterate over them and check if something new was added.
So what is suggested review workflow for MR?
1 Like
You can find a suggested workflow within that white paper (which covers all code review functionality you have in GitLab): http://bit.ly/37idXko
I feel your pain.
The GitLab code review (so called) workflow is awfully unproductive and frustrating. My company has recently adopted it and my code review productivity has dropped at least 25% not to mention the effectiveness. We were using Crucible, which though dated in UI design is far more effective.
It amazes me that Gitlab code review is the best solution that a large tech company can come up with in 2024.
We don’t want a link to a white paper (sales pitch) provided by another company that requires me to provide my personal details to download.
We want the software to be fit for purpose.