Hi.
We have a large SVN repo of LaTeX documents. Each document ultimately is rendered into PDF.
Documents need to be reviewed. Review has two major goals: ensure the quality of text itself and ensure the qualify of typesetting.
Right now reviewer could be separated into two major groups:
Those who use SVN to checkout sources and build PDFs for themselves, and submit results of review as SVN commits
Those who get pre-built PDFs from ftp server and submit results as a free-form list of comments via email.
Document authors process the review results by processing \todo{} blocks in LaTeX code, by rolling back unneeded changes in SVN or incorporating free-form comments from e-mail into LaTeX sources.
Problem is, as the number of documents grow, it is very hard to keep track of the reviewers from the second group, and incorporate their suggestions in the timely and thorough manner.
Therefore, some nonsophisticated post-commit review solution is needed.
Requirements:
Post-commit review
All repository should be by default considered a review target without a need to specify files/line ranges for review.
Support for anonymous comments/review results
Reviews/comments should have status to facilitate processing
Web-based
Integration with SVN, so that new commits could automatically be incorporated in the review
Open source/cusomizable
ReviewBoard, CodeStiker, plugins for trac, Rietveld, JCR - they all fail to satisfy some of those requirements. Besides, most of them are too complex for the need at hand.
Crucible is nice. It is complex, but could be made easy via customization. However price tag is a bit heavy.
What did I miss?