fahhem

I'd be happy to chat, though we'd likely come up with something unique to individuals so we're not wasting each other's time every year. Reach out to support@reviewable.io and mention this thread

This is a feature of Reviewable.io, there's a system file called Commits where you can comment on the commit titles and descriptions!

We're actually a small company and only 2 of us posted here, most of the other plugs of us are by users. piotrkaminski is the only other user here from the company

We have an on-prem edition that doesn't even phone home, so you don't have to rely on us for anything but updates.

We're still around and we've actually changed a lot. Our homepage is untouched (for now!) but you can check out our blog for proof of life :D

http://blog.reviewable.io/

This topic came up today on the homepage, so I figured this post from 3 weeks ago could be relevant to folks!

Thanks, we heart you too :D

You're right, though I think that changed recently? I vaguely remember only the last force push showed up, but now I see more than one so :shrug:

I agree, we work on Reviewable, which uses those same blobs.

However, we add tags to commits we're referencing, just in case someone at GitHub gets around to implementing garbage collection!

GitHub is a platform with dozens of tools, I think of it as a basic toolbox. It's great, but if you're hammering nails all day, you should invest in a nailgun. Doesn't mean you don't use the hammer or the wrench in your toolbox, but when you care about one task a lot, you invest in the tool to do that task better

Then sign up for Reviewable, which supports this (we called them revisions) http://blog.reviewable.io/tracking-changes-in-a-code-review

Sorry for the shameless plug!

If your tool moves comments forward to newer changesets (ideally with some sort of code ensuring it's in the right place) then that's done automatically for you.

Reviewable does this with an algorithm that ensures the code context is similar, with a visual warning if the comment might be in the wrong place. (Shameless plug!)

I agree, you want a basic tool for most users that just need the ability to review the code. But, once your team is doing something where the code quality is important, you'll want to switch to a better tool for the job (like Reviewable!), just like when you switch from a whisk and bowl to a kitchenaid standing mixer when you start baking often

There's a ton of cli tools to automate maintaining a stack of PR's, with new ones coming out all the time. I've seen 'spr' for a long time, and recently there's graphite's and even aviator came out with 'av'.

All supported by Reviewable, of course (sorry for the shameless plug!)

I truly believe that Reviewable is the best way to review code on GitHub, that's why I left a Head of Engineering post to come work here.

Reviewable tracks code by revisions (aka changesets), not just the state of the git branch like GitHub, and many more improvements both to the broad strokes and to the small things.

Want to immediately see which PR's you should review? Want to avoid getting pinged during the day to review PR's you could have reviewed on your schedule? Want to see the status of a PR right when you open it? What about keeping your comments on the right line even as new changesets come in so you never have to review the PR from scratch again?

All handled by Reviewable to make you a better engineer: fewer interruptions, no repeated work, and generally respond to reviewers faster

I can't speak for CodeApprove, but Reviewable has file grouping capabilities so users can groups files based on anything they want (using a javascript function to do it)

Nice job Scott! We're seeing a lot of interest in this sort of thing at Reviewable.io (the best way to review code on GitHub ... manually :D) though most users have been hesitant to say "okay, then send all of our code to GPT-4".

Have you tried using Llama 2 or other models that can be run locally? I tried with Llama and llama2 and saw much better results with 2

Yep, I agree! I work at, and use, Reviewable (https://reviewable.io) and we're the best way to review code on GitHub because we've focused on making the whole process better at every step.

We've improved diffing, not only for large files (we support larger files than GitHub does) but also for understanding that diff. Have you ever reviewed a PR twice, but the second time around all your comments are gone and you have no idea what happened to the code since the last time you saw it? Unlike GitHub, Reviewable tracks PR's based on revisions, so you can see the diff between the previous revision and the current one, no matter what the author did to the branch to get here.

We've also improved commenting. The OP mentions putting a discussion in the sidebar because commenting on the main thread gets drowned out by GitHub's audit trail. With Reviewable, we separate the audit information from the main discussion, so you can discuss the PR, an individual file, or a part of a diff without losing track of or getting distracted away from any of those discussions.

We also support pre-approval of PR's that satisfy business requirements at a technical level. This is often taken advantage of by teams that have bots that make certain, software-checkable changes (such as whitespace-only changes), or monorepo organizations with an `experimental/$USER` folder structure.

Thanks for the shoutout!

Thanks for the compliment masklinn!

Paying users can turn off the button on PR descriptions (and free users have some flexibility on where it goes). I hope you understand we can't provide the service free and secretly :D

Reviewable (the best way to review code on GitHub) has a new homepage and it's much better than their old one. What do you think? Would you use it based on the new page?

Are you asking about my "clusters" or k3d?

For my clusters, they're all single-node and therefore not fault-tolerant clusters, so I don't worry about graceful fault tolerance. I just use nginx-ingress which opens a port on the node (via iptables, so don't expect `lsof` to help!). Then my router port-forwards so my home IP:80 eventually hits my NUC

I was surprised when I setup k3d the first time, I had a multi-node cluster on my (4 year old) desktop and was able to deploy a multi-node service I wanted to test out without any problems. I would highly recommend k3d if you don't want to pay for cloud servers and don't actually need either high-availability or the CPU power of 3 servers. Also, your desktop is probably more powerful than any base-tier server.

Thanks for the comment!

> k9s tool is much better

I know about k9s, but it doesn't have a "Workloads" tab that shows both failing pods and their source (deployment, daemonset, etc).

> I've found Promtail daemonset connected to Loki/Grafana to be good.

I'll look into this, thanks!

> Another neat trick is using Kompose to translate docker-compose to yaml. Helm works too, but I find them a little opaque.

I didn't mention how I wrote/got all the services' yaml, but it was a combination of kompose (and one in instance an online tool that converted a 'docker run' command I had hand-crafted a while ago to docker-compose, to chain into Kompose), chatgpt for the basic ones, and helmCharts via kustomize.

Thanks Sam! :D

We recently launched a new landing page and would love to get feedback!

Probably the snark

We've fixed the uppercase html, if you modify your mock and preview the code, you'll see the update.

Thank you for the feedback!