We may consider this for 16.2 (planned for Oct/Nov 2017).
We will be looking to add code-review to StarTeam for 16.2 (targeted for Oct/Nov 2017)
Hi, Archie. Any update on this one? I didn't see mention of it in the latest 16.2 release, either.
I'd like to see this ability, too. Having the comments/reviews versioned like all the other artifacts would be very beneficial and keep the original source code from getting cluttered up.
(As a comparison, GitHub has a similar functionality.)
This is being seriously considered for 16.2. Planning for the next release is about 1 month away (late April 2017). There’s been enough high votes for this functionality. It will take a lot of effort, but given the enormous support for this functionality we’re looking to see if it can be added to 16.2 (which is planned for Oct/Nov 2017).
We have already started on StarTeam 16.1. As of now, we wouldn’t be able to add it to 16.1 without taking something away that has already been committed. Should anything change, we’ll consider it. Otherwise, I have it on the roadmap for the next release following 16.1
That sounds great. Thank you!
4 votesMore Info Needed · 1 comment · StarTeam Feature Requests » StarTeam Server · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
@Pedro, there's the "File Annotation" feature in the CPC. Is that similar? (I'm not all that familiar with SVN: What further functionality does Blame offer?)
Need to understand the LOE and if it’s something that we could plan for in a future release. Thanks!
12 votesunder review · 1 comment · StarTeam Feature Requests » ALM Integrations · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
In Plan, phased approached.
I would like to see a more fully-featured web interface, too -- one that _could_ replace the CPC. But I would still want the option of having a native client.
25 votesunder review · 1 comment · StarTeam Feature Requests » Frontend · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
7 votesunder review · 4 comments · StarTeam Feature Requests » StarTeam Server · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
Other Office formats, like Excel and PowerPoint compare would be nice. And since we're talking about text-like files, I'd throw PDF compare in there, too.
[The new Office formats (those that the extension ends in 'x') really are just text documents anyway -- XML files stored in a .zip-like format.]