> If Gerrit is not also hosting your 'origin' git repositories and acting as a gatekeeper for any commit to be added to it, then you are working against the sys

> If Gerrit is not also hosting your 'origin' git repositories and acting as a gatekeeper for any commit to be added to it, then you are working against the system. It is/was. But if I push my work to origin/features/foo, then push the same commit to refs/for/master, it will not create a review because no new commit has been introduced. At least that's my experience and it is (kind of) spelled out like that in the manual [1]: "Each new commit uploaded by the git push client will be converted into a change record on the server." I've only tried this a couple of times, so hopefully that was a case of PEBKAC. > Bugs in plugins are of course not a good reason to say Gerrit isn't very good. Services like GitLab/GitHub/Bitbucket work with every git GUI out of the box, because all you need to do is to push branches and then open a web browser. With Gerrit, you need to know how to push to a magic URL (especially if you want to specify a topic or message), or you'll need a plugin. I don't blame Gerrit for the low quality of the IntelliJ plugin, but for needing a plugin in the first place. [1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-upload.html#_git_push https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-up...