So like, I remember. Like Visual Studio or Visual Studio .NET. They both used to be super expensive, but at one point there was a community edition. I know and like there's also Visual Studio Code but like I guess my question is like if I were to start like I'm just like I want to go build a Xamarin app right now like Is is there a cost to tooling if I were to build it like I know riders JetBrains so that you... - Source: dev.to / 10 days ago

Azure DevOps by Microsoft is an all-in-one CI/CD platform that features entire software delivery in one place. As the name suggests, it is more than just a CI/CD tool. - Source: dev.to / about 1 month ago

PR-Agent offers extensive pull request functionalities across various git providers: GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket, CodeCommit, Azure DevOps, Gerrit. - Source: dev.to / 5 months ago

Protip: Use a debugger like dnSpy or Visual studio to trace the source of error, by stepping the program line by line. You can restart with dnSpy attached. Source: 6 months ago

When done with the installation, proceed to Azure to create an organization under which your extension will be published. On the Azure DevOps page, sign up by clicking Start free. To set it up faster you can Start free with GitHub. - Source: dev.to / 8 months ago

Reviewable.io — Code review for GitHub repositories, free for public or personal repos. - Source: dev.to / 4 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 / 8 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 / 11 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 / 12 months ago