5 ms·
Heh, that's a contentious topic. Personally, I would like to do so. I think I speak correctly when I say that most of the Infrastructure team would like to do s
by phasmantistes 11y ago
Heh, that's a contentious topic. Personally, I would like to do so. I think I speak correctly when I say that most of the Infrastructure team would like to do so, to increase security/auditability and ease the maintenance burden on ourselves.
However, large portions of the team are opposed to Gerrit because a) it doesn't integrate as well with our other systems (such as trybots and cq) and b) the UI has some issues. We are working with people to try to fix those, but there's no particular timeline for switching, or even a guarantee that we will.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago> a) it doesn't integrate as well with our other systems (such as trybots and cq) and b) the UI has some issues. Is there a tracking bug for all the integration and UI issues? How can folks working on Chromium but without an @google.com help?
- phasmantistes 11y agoI think this is the best tracking bug: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=465929 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=465929 There are three things going on: 1) Rietveld exists 2) A new Polymer-based UI for Rietveld exists 3) Gerrit exists The bug linked above is about evaluating the ability to make the Polymer-based UI (which is pretty and functional) work on top of Gerrit instead of on top of Rietveld. This is one of the possible paths forward for getting people to use Gerrit, and the one for which external contributors could be the most help. Other paths forward exist: making Rietveld and the polymer Rietveld UI so good that no one wants to switch to Gerrit anymore; working directly on the Gerrit UI; or convincing devs that the Gerrit UI is good enough. But I think the bug and description above is the path on which external contributors could do the most good.
- jgraham 11y agoYou should ask your friends at Opera about code review systems ;)