Changes between Version 17 and Version 18 of PeerReviewPlugin/Documentation

Timestamp:

Apr 6, 2016, 7:00:31 PM (8 years ago)

Author:

figaro

Comment:

Further cosmetic changes, added tag

PeerReviewPlugin/Documentation

@@ -5 +5 @@
 == Overview
 
-The PeerReviewPlugin is a plugin for Trac that facilitates distributed peer review of code. Normally peer review happens in a central location with paper copies of code, or works in an unstructured fashion involving email or other electronic means to communicate. However, these systems are inefficient for multiple code reviews, and can become unmanageable very quickly. Hence, this plugin assists developers in managing and performing code reviews in a distributed and centralised way.
+The PeerReviewPlugin is a plugin for Trac that facilitates distributed peer review of source code. Normally peer review happens in a central location with paper copies of code, or works in an unstructured fashion involving email or other electronic means to communicate. However, these systems are inefficient for multiple code reviews and can become unmanageable, because of the need for tracking and synchronising the suggestions for improvement. Hence, this plugin assists developers in managing and performing code reviews in a distributed and centralised way.
 
 == Description
 
-Distributed peer review facilitates code review without the need for all team members to meet at the same time, thereby saving time. In addition, changes proposed under a distributed system are easier to implement. This project aims to create a distributed peer review system by creating a plugin for Trac, which is a browser-based content management system that includes bug-tracking. The plugin integrates with Subversion, a popular open-source version control system. 
+Distributed peer review facilitates code review without the need for all team members to be present at the same time, thereby saving time. In addition, changes proposed under a distributed system are easier to implement. This project implements a distributed peer review system by creating a plugin for Trac, a browser-based content management system that includes bug-tracking. The plugin integrates with Subversion, a popular open-source version control system. 
 
 '''Note:''' Since version 2.1 this plugin uses the new template engine Genshi, and supports SQLite, PostgreSQL and MySQL as database backends.
@@ -44 +44 @@
 ==== Choose a name
 
-This will be the name that will appear on the main page after the code review is created. A name cannot be longer than 50 characters in length.
+This will be the name that appears on the main page after the code review is created. A name cannot be longer than 50 characters.
 
 [[Image(newCodeReview_step1.PNG, 400px, border=2)]]
@@ -52 +52 @@
 The user is presented with the Subversion repository tied to Trac.
 
-Navigation through this repository is identical to navigation through the Trac repository. Clicking on folders navigates through the folder. Clicking on files will open that file if an HTML preview is available. To navigate back up, click on the corresponding folder above the repository, for example, where it says "root".
+Navigation through this repository is identical to navigation through the Trac repository. Clicking on folders navigates through the file structure. Clicking on files will open that file if an HTML preview is available. To navigate back up, click on the corresponding folder above the repository, for example, where it says "root".
 
 [[Image(newCodeReview_step2_1.PNG, 700px, border=2)]]
@@ -60 +60 @@
 [[Image(newCodeReview_step2_2.PNG, 700px, border=2)]]
 
-There are two ways to select a file to be added into the peer review.
+There are two ways to select a file to be added into the peer review:
  1. Select one or more files in the repository browser and click ''Add files''. This adds the whole files to a review.
  1. Click the corresponding lines of code on the left that you would like to add. For example, here the user clicked on 82 and clicked on 87 to select lines 82-87. Alternatively, the user could type those numbers into the corresponding text boxes below the repository browser.
@@ -112 +112 @@
 [[Image(performCodeReview_4.PNG, 400px, border=2)]]
 
-After the comments box is opened, the "Refresh" link updates the comments box to the most updated comments (which is automatically done whenever the box is initially loaded). Also, users can reply directly to previous posts by clicking the "Reply" link under the existing comment.
+After the comments box is opened, the "Refresh" link updates the comments box to the most updated comments, which is automatically done whenever the box is initially loaded. Also, users can reply directly to previous posts by clicking the "Reply" link under the existing comment.
 
 Alternately, users can add a new comment by clicking the "Add New Comment" button:
@@ -192 +192 @@
  Code review:: A collection of reviewers and a collection of files to be reviewed. 
 
- Developer:: A normal user. Can create code reviews and be assigned as a reviewer to them. Can search for code reviews, see reviews they created, and see reviews they are assigned to.
+ Developer:: A normal user that reads and writes source code. Can create code reviews and be assigned as a reviewer to them. Can search for code reviews, see reviews they created, and see reviews they are assigned to.
 
  Manager:: User with highest privileges. Can do everything that a developer can do. Can also change the status of a review at any time. When reviews have "Ready for inclusion" status, these appear on the manager's main page in a table. Can also view the Manager Options page.
@@ -209 +209 @@
  Threshold:: This setting defines the number of positive votes versus total votes necessary for an author to submit a code review for a manager's approval.
 
+ User:: A generic term for someone using this plugin, and not necessarily someone as an end-user of the product. A user can be either a developer, reviewer, manager or author.
+
  Vote:: "Approve" or "Not Approve", which signal that the reviewer either accepts the changes made by the review author, or feels that they should not be inserted into the main trunk unless some important changes are made.