Discuss possible collaboration with egerrit

[niklaseklund]

Hi Thomas,

just wanted to drop by and say hello and check if you have had any time to try out the egerrit package. I wanted to let you know that I have moved the development to sourcehut, so you will find the package here https://git.sr.ht/~niklaseklund/egerrit.

Have you given it any more thoughts to possibilities for collaboration? :). I have focused on some other development recently but picked up the package the other week and made some more improvements to it. So then I came to think about your package :)

/Niklas

[twmr]

H Niklas!

Thx for contacting me! I was very busy with work so I haven't yet tested your code, but I had a look at the egerrit.el code serveral times. There is now a WIP wiki page that compares our packages in https://github.com/thisch/gerrit.el/wiki/Comparison-of-gerrit.el-with-egerrit.el Feel free to extend this page.

I haven't made any new changes to gerrit.el lately, but I plan to change this soon, but first I'll finally test your pkg ;) Give me two weeks for that. I'll contact you no later than June 25th - I need deadlines ;) BTW Do you have a roadmap for your project or what are the features that you want to implement next?

[niklaseklund]

No stress, great initiative with the comparison wiki. I'll see if I have something to add :). I like the idea of using plz instead of having to re-invent the wheel for the requests. Unfortunately I seem to run into this bug https://github.com/alphapapa/plz.el/issues/3. I think it should be easy to transition to using plz once that has been sorted out :)

Haha, alright ;) No pressure from my side :)

That's a good question. This is what I have had in mind recently:

• [x] Using the rest api to get the patch diff for the review as well as partial review. The partial review diff now can show which hunks are due to a rebase, which is something I have missed from the web ui.
• [x] Re-introduce transient for commands. I removed it because I thought it was unnecessary to have magit as a dependency for just transient, but now since its part of ELPA I think it make sense to go back to using it.
• [ ] Improve the comments buffer for reviews. Current implementation could be improved when it comes to finding out the relation between a comment and the location in the diff buffer. Also I would like the user to be able to hide/show comments that are closed. Currently only open comments are shown, which is most of the time what one wants but its beneficial to have control of it from a users perspective.
• [x] Support for a dedicated review repo. I would like the users to optionally be able to have a repository for only reviews, which should be different from the code repository. This is useful for those times that one might be running some evaluation in the code repository and while waiting want to do some reviews. But then its not possible to go into review-mode where the source code is checked out locally.

That's what I am thinking would be up next for the moment :)

[niklaseklund]

I have created a branch named restructure, where I have initiated work to split up the code in several files to make it easier to grasp :) https://git.sr.ht/~niklaseklund/egerrit/tree/restructure