3 ms·

I guess it comes down to organisational style. Using merge requests requires some benevolent dictator (poor sod?) to perform the merges. For us, if your commit

I guess it comes down to organisational style. Using merge requests requires some benevolent dictator (poor sod?) to perform the merges. For us, if your commit is approved in Gerrit, it's your task to merge it. If some other commit was merged in between, you have to rebase, possibly solving merge conflicts. So guess that with a monolithic repo, that wouldn't scale, but it could be made to scale by appointing someone to perform the merge requests. I'm not sure I would like to be that person...

Mathiasdm 11y ago
I helped set up such a system for a few hundred developers. We had an 'automated Linus Torvalds', which did the merge, and aborted whenever a file was changed on both sides of the merge. In the good case (almost every time), there were no conflicts, and the merge went fine (we had unittests, builds and regression tests as extra checks in our CI system). In the bad case, the developer request was rejected and the developer was told to rebase or merge his code on his own, so the merge issues would be handled.