Buildbot VS Reviewable

Buildbot is a versatile CI framework designed to automate all aspects of the software development cycle, enhancing efficiency and reliability. As an open-source platform, it is highly customizable, allowing teams to tailor the automation process to their specific needs. Buildbot excels in integrating various stages of development, from code integration, testing, to deployment, ensuring a seamless and coherent... - Source: dev.to / 4 months ago

If you want more than the builtin CIs in Github and Gitlab, https://buildbot.net is the way. Source: about 1 year ago

If you don't have one already integrated with your source control, buildbot is pretty nice and doesn't force you to use docker like most others. Source: over 1 year ago

Https://buildbot.net/ existed before Jenkins Hudson and was quite well known. Source: over 1 year ago

I have used python based CI tool buildbot which is a great tool but we want to move away from buildbot only because in some scenarios we want to compile low-level microseconds which are in c++ to a different architecture. Buildbot doesn't have such a feature. - Source: dev.to / almost 2 years ago

Reviewable.io — Code review for GitHub repositories, free for public or personal repos. - Source: dev.to / 3 months ago

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... - Source: Hacker News / 7 months ago

Https://reviewable.io is the earliest full-powered Critique alternative for GitHub. It supports some cool things Critique doesn't/didn't, such as reviewing multi-commit branches (also across history-rewriting force-push cleanups), and indicating exactly the nature of your comment (just FYI, or you want this to be changed before you'll give your approval). (I was an intern in the initial making of Critique, and... - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago

The linux kernel, which is open source and does want contributors, is doing more-or-less just fine with an email-based PR and review flow. If it's an open source project, it should be using an open source review platform that allows improvements and specialization of the code hosting too. Using github, where the review tools are bad and can't be improved by an outsider, is a slap in the face to open source.... - Source: Hacker News / 10 months ago

>See reviewer presence so that you can see if someone is already reviewing and avoid unnecessary pings. >Visibly values privacy and security above all else These two things seem squarely at odds. Personally, I don't want my code review tool announcing to developers when I'm looking at their PR. The fact that it's a Chrome extension would also be a big blocker for me. I run a dev team, and I wouldn't... - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago