Zuul VS Reviewable

Zuul (https://zuul-ci.org ) is specifically built for this use case. It was originally designed for OpenStack's CI, with OpenStack being broken down in multiple inter-dependent repos. Source: 5 months ago

If you’re already using gerrit I would strongly recommend looking at Zuul https://zuul-ci.org. Source: 10 months ago

Zuul (code) helps your team stop merging broken code -- the best kind of gatekeeping. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago

I wanted to share a package that I have created, and use, to interface the Zuul CI from Emacs. It offers completion for builds or buildsets, and implements a zuul-log-mode to browse the remote logs. Source: almost 2 years ago

Yay, yet another proprietary Zuul clone! 😶. Source: 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 / 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 / 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