This documentation relates to Crucible 2.7.x

If you are using an earlier version, please view the previous versions of the Crucible documentation and select the relevant version.
Skip to end of metadata
Comment: Corrected links that should have been relative instead of absolute.
Go to start of metadata

This document describes several forms of Crucible Workflow in detail. Depending on the size of your team, there are four different ways that a development team could use Crucible for code reviews. Choose the workflow which suits your team.

 

Lightweight Code Commenting with Crucible (individual)

  1. Author commits new work.
  2. Author creates the review, and adds comments using the easy web interface.
  3. Author summarizes and closes the review, saving the code comments in Crucible's database, which is stored outside the repository.

    Diagram: Workflow for Lightweight Code Commenting

One-to-One Reviews (Agile Pair)

  1. Author creates the review.
  2. Author invites reviewer to take part in the review.
  3. Reviewer creates comments on the code.
  4. Author responds to reviewer comments.
  5. Follow-up comments are made if necessary.
  6. Reviewer finishes own review process.
  7. Author summarizes and closes the review.

    Diagram: Workflow for One-to-One Reviews

For more information on one-to-one reviews, see Getting Started with Crucible. The workflow process in Crucible is covered in detail within this document.

One-to-Many Reviews Without a Moderator (Agile Team)

  1. Author creates the review.
  2. Author invites reviewers to take part in the review.
  3. Reviewers make comments on the code.
  4. Author responds to reviewer comments, follow-up comments are made if necessary.
  5. Reviewers complete their reviews.
  6. Author summarizes and closes the review.

    Diagram: Workflow for One-to-Many Reviews

 

Formal Group Reviews (CMM Team)

  1. Author creates the review.
  2. Moderator invites reviewers to take part the review.
  3. Reviewers make comments on the code.
  4. Author responds to reviewer comments.
  5. Follow-up comments are made if necessary.
  6. Each discussion point is settled by the Moderator.
  7. Moderator summarizes and closes the review.

    Diagram: Workflow for Formal Group Reviews

    To see a simple example of how to use Crucible with two people, see Getting Started with Crucible.
Labels:
None
Edit Labels

2 Comments

Hide/Show Comments

  1. Nov 01, 2010

    Anonymous

    What's the difference between the workflow "One-to-One Reviews (Agile Pair)" and "One-to-Many Reviews Without a Moderator (Agile Team)" ? The Moderator's role doesn't show up in either.

  2. Feb 24, 2011

    Alexander Ashitkin

    all 4 workflows essentialy the same. for me 2 main things important in workflow - how the review could be completed and how to iterate over it. For me obviously there should review workflow with ability to complete review only if agreed by all reviewers. So, the reviewer has reviewed a 100% of code isn't enough. Reviewer should be able to vote no, so block a review completion. Once all reviewers voted, an iteration is done and then author can go ahead - fix, etc. Also, an author couldn't sit and wait for the every new comment to fix. it's not rational. He need to join the review in a reasonable moment, so reviewer should be able to signal somehow - the author could join. This could be done with more intelligent notification of the author (status bar icon, dedicated email, etc.). Second thing - somebody could be a review blocker. so he also should be notified of this. and this also should be not somewhere in an email inbox, but on the cricible desktop.