Maybe you should look at RhodeCode, it has several different workflows for code-review. From very simple like just voting on each individual commit, to a fully blown server side mergable workflow that includes, voting, checks by CI, and integration to external services. We did a blog about it recently on how we use it internally: https://rhodecode.com/blog/increased-automation-at-rhodecode...

Displaimer: i'm the CTO of RhodeCode

Displaimer = Displayed Disclaimer?

Take a look at Phabricator:

http://phabricator.org/

It has it's own code review workflow which is, in my opinion, superior to Github's.

A nice summary:

http://cramer.io/2014/05/03/on-pull-requests/

Github's code review capabilities are a huge weak point for team projects, and I've seen several services spring up to attempt to capitalize on this. Mozilla's Servo project is currently trialing one called Reviewable, here's a demonstration: https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6456

Hi! I'm a Developer Advocate over at Atlassian, and I'd like to point out that Stash offers extensible merge controls through merge request check plugins. In addition to pre-configured and third-party plugins, an open API allows you to make custom merge requirements.

https://developer.atlassian.com/stash/docs/latest/tutorials-...

In Bitbucket, we don't support this yet, but we do allow branch restrictions to ensure only trusted users are able to merge sensitive branches and many teams find this to be a suitable proxy for that behavior.

https://blog.bitbucket.org/2013/09/16/take-control-with-bran...

I'm the CEO of Atlassian (who run Bitbucket & Stash). Would love to get your feedback on what we can do to improve. We really pride ourselves on making products that have the right level of control in our products.

Or email me - scott <at> atlassian.

Hi guelo,

can you elaborate a bit more what you are looking for? What kind of structure do you need?

Without these informations, I'll just throw gitlab in the possible alternatives pool.

https://about.gitlab.com/features/

Please note that I'm biased since I'm on the gitlab core team. :)

Have you checked out any of the GitHub plugins that do this, something like https://www.zenhub.io could help you add more structure to GitHub

We use gerrit hosted on EC2 mirroring commits to github for backup.

I am an unabashed fan of Gerrit - the fine-grained ACLs can be annoying to wrap your head around, but the code review interface is quite nice.

the only thing I've found missing is the ability to render images inline. If someone submits a documentation update with SVG and PNG updates, you have to download the changeset to see the files. It would be nice if an option for "view this attachment inline" were available without installing extensions.

check out stash by atlassian https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash

In my experience Stash is not much better. It has simple commenting on diffs, but we had to have a plugin to automatically "unapprove" everyone once a new commit was added to a PR. It's social aspects are no better than GitHub code comments either.

I always found Crucible much nicer and it integrates w/ Stash decently, but I worry it and Fisheye are on the backburner at Atlassian.

What is it that you're after? You already know about Stash's plugin system that you can configure to do anything weird and wonderful (huge perk), but wondering if there is something we should bake into the core product?

(Atlassian CEO here)

So glad you responded, thank you. I definitely have suggestions. Our devops team was going to remove Crucible/Fisheye and I gave them this non-exhaustive list of why I would like to keep those tools in conjunction with stash:

* Fisheye has crazy advanced searching (in commit messages, users, etc)

* Fisheye offers he ability to watch for changes on files and directories that happen in any branch

* Fisheye shows a file as it might look with all branches and tags together (though it doesn't always combine them well of course as might be expected w/out using the VCS's conflict resolution)

* Crucible shows you what changed since you last reviewed and has an awesome slider (though can be a bit buggy)

* Crucible live-notifies updates in the browser on changes

* Crucible offers reviews on patches to a repo that may not be committed

* Crucible differentiates comments and defects

* Crucible lets me see unread vs read comments on files

* Crucible lets me see the number of comments (read and unread) on in the file-list pane on the left before going to the file

I personally think all 3 tools serve different purposes. I understand the want to move away from Crucible/Fisheye which are older and predate Git which causes some issues. IMO, there is a big unsatisfied market for code review tooling right now. There is also a market (probably not as big) for intelligent searching and notifications across a repo.

Edit: Formatting

Just want to say thanks for creating an awesome suite of products that integrates nicely and seamlessly together.

Re: stash. It's by far the best code review product I've used. And I've tried plenty!

Hey Hasan, have you tried https://reviewable.io? I'd love to get your feedback / comparison with Stash if you have a moment! (It's not a direct competitor as it's specific to GitHub, but I'd love to know how it measures up against your favorite.) Thanks.

I haven't actually, but I just looked at it and while it seems very well thought of, the first thing I miss from stash is the fact that It doesn't show me the whole file by default, just the diffs. And I can comment on lines outside the diffs, which is often needed. I could't find a way in reviewable to comment on a line. Stash shows the comments near the lines which makes it easy to follow.

In stash, I see the list of files on the left, and clicking on each file shows me the diffs. I also have the option to see the diff only (without the whole file).

Where I work we cannot use outside review tools, it has to be hosted internally. But I don't think we are your target audience in this case.

Cool, thanks! You need to sign in to leave comments, and they are indeed attached to specific lines (either in or outside the diff). They even move across revisions of a file as you iterate on the review... And yeah, you can easily expand to see a whole file if you want.

I figured that Reviewable wasn't the right tool for you / your company -- I was just looking for your opinion. Cheers!

Doesn't BitBucket/Stash provide more structure for code reviews? You can lock down the main branch and force code to get merged via a PR.

What kind of structure? Bitbucket/Stash have explicit "approve" built in, which has always been plenty for my use case.

FYI We've added 'Approve' to GitLab Enterprise Edition as well with the latest release (7.12).