7 ms·

Any time I come across a project that uses Gerrit I immediately abandon any proposed patches I had planned to submit. Gerrit is terrible for actually working w

by Washuu 9y ago

Any time I come across a project that uses Gerrit I immediately abandon any proposed patches I had planned to submit. Gerrit is terrible for actually working with and is unfriendly even to experienced git users. I have to battle with Gerrit to submit patches to MediaWiki and it is a painful process every time. Clarifying that I believe that my personal off work time is valuable to myself. The more time and friction I have to spend putting in a pull request/code review is the less time I get to myself.

frogperson 9y ago
I don't understand your point of view at all. Gerrit has such a good work flow and ui. It's probably in the top 5 best tools I have ever used. Github's pull request model is like a child's toy in comparison.
- xstartup 9y ago
  Serious question, what are other best ones?
  - vlovich123 9y ago
    I really enjoyed ReviewBoard when I used it but we built up a lot of tooling around it to actually make it useful & integrate into git.
  - ithkuil 9y ago
    I like https://reviewable.io https://reviewable.io, low friction github integration but gerrit-like multi-patchsets and generally a sane flow when you have multiple rounds of comments
- labster 9y ago
  Gerrit has a good UI? Heh, that's a good one. Git's CLI is like 10x superior to Gerrit's interface, and that's even counting the fact that git checkout does like 2 or 3 different things. I've basically given up on fighting with the WMF's Gerrit install and outsource the work to other people. I push a commit up to a github repository, open a task, and ask another developer to grab my commit from a new git remote. I want to write code, not wrangle with whatever Gerrit wants me to do to submit code. And then look for tiny links on a cluttered page. No thanks.
- nbsd4lyfe 9y ago
  I'm assuming you're talking about the reviewer and long term contributor side of it. personally I found initial setup as a drive-by contributor to be very tedious. GitHub is the lowest friction because I already have an account with SSH key etc.
- u801e 9y ago
  What is your opinion on just using a pure mailing list workflow (like what's done for git itself)?
alphaIuGN59 9y ago
I know there are a lot of code review tools, but with GITHUB and all the tools they make available, I wonder why the other code-review tools are still being developed/maintained.
- skittleson 9y ago
  I wonder that too. Even competing code review tools are very similar.
- not_kurt_godel 9y ago
  > GITHUB Off-topic, but I'm genuinely curious why you chose this capitalization?
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    My wife often types complete messages in caps. I asked her why she was shouting, and she told me she doesn't consider it shouting at all. To her there's no difference between typing in small letters and all caps.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    I see this fairly often that somehow a group of users collectively decides that a certain name has to be typed in all-caps. Whenever someone asks me a question about SWIFT, I tell them I have no idea about fintech, but I can instead answer any questions they have about Swift. But it's an uphill battle. (OpenStack Swift, that is, not Apple Swift. And not Suzuki Swift either.)
    - _asummers 9y ago
      My favorite is when people capitalize LISP. It's not 1958 anymore, we can just say Lisp now.
  - alphaIuGN59 9y ago
    No reason really.. Probably unconciouslly highlighted GITHUB :)
shaan7 9y ago
See the comment on the same thread https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18517#issuecomment-270518336 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18517#issuecomment-27051...
rajathagasthya 9y ago
I've used both and I much prefer Gerrit over Github. I like the multiple patchset workflow, I don't have to deal with fork/opening a PR and I can actually do dependent reviews in Gerrit (if someone knows how to do this in Github, let me know!). I find Github has "too many steps".
AndyNemmity 9y ago
Honestly, I am the same way. Any project that users gerrit for some reasons takes 10x+ time to merge issues or communicate, and the usability is terrible. I now just avoid it whenever possible, usually forking my own thing, and just doing what I need.

by Washuu 9y ago

frogperson 9y ago

I don't understand your point of view at all. Gerrit has such a good work flow and ui. It's probably in the top 5 best tools I have ever used. Github's pull request model is like a child's toy in comparison.

xstartup 9y ago
Serious question, what are other best ones?
- vlovich123 9y ago
  I really enjoyed ReviewBoard when I used it but we built up a lot of tooling around it to actually make it useful & integrate into git.
- ithkuil 9y ago
  I like https://reviewable.io https://reviewable.io, low friction github integration but gerrit-like multi-patchsets and generally a sane flow when you have multiple rounds of comments
labster 9y ago
Gerrit has a good UI? Heh, that's a good one. Git's CLI is like 10x superior to Gerrit's interface, and that's even counting the fact that git checkout does like 2 or 3 different things. I've basically given up on fighting with the WMF's Gerrit install and outsource the work to other people. I push a commit up to a github repository, open a task, and ask another developer to grab my commit from a new git remote. I want to write code, not wrangle with whatever Gerrit wants me to do to submit code. And then look for tiny links on a cluttered page. No thanks.
nbsd4lyfe 9y ago
I'm assuming you're talking about the reviewer and long term contributor side of it. personally I found initial setup as a drive-by contributor to be very tedious. GitHub is the lowest friction because I already have an account with SSH key etc.
u801e 9y ago
What is your opinion on just using a pure mailing list workflow (like what's done for git itself)?

alphaIuGN59 9y ago

I know there are a lot of code review tools, but with GITHUB and all the tools they make available, I wonder why the other code-review tools are still being developed/maintained.

skittleson 9y ago
I wonder that too. Even competing code review tools are very similar.
not_kurt_godel 9y ago
> GITHUB Off-topic, but I'm genuinely curious why you chose this capitalization?
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  My wife often types complete messages in caps. I asked her why she was shouting, and she told me she doesn't consider it shouting at all. To her there's no difference between typing in small letters and all caps.
- majewsky 9y ago
  I see this fairly often that somehow a group of users collectively decides that a certain name has to be typed in all-caps. Whenever someone asks me a question about SWIFT, I tell them I have no idea about fintech, but I can instead answer any questions they have about Swift. But it's an uphill battle. (OpenStack Swift, that is, not Apple Swift. And not Suzuki Swift either.)
  - _asummers 9y ago
    My favorite is when people capitalize LISP. It's not 1958 anymore, we can just say Lisp now.
- alphaIuGN59 9y ago
  No reason really.. Probably unconciouslly highlighted GITHUB :)

shaan7 9y ago

See the comment on the same thread https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18517#issuecomment-270518336 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18517#issuecomment-27051...

rajathagasthya 9y ago

I've used both and I much prefer Gerrit over Github. I like the multiple patchset workflow, I don't have to deal with fork/opening a PR and I can actually do dependent reviews in Gerrit (if someone knows how to do this in Github, let me know!). I find Github has "too many steps".

AndyNemmity 9y ago

Honestly, I am the same way. Any project that users gerrit for some reasons takes 10x+ time to merge issues or communicate, and the usability is terrible. I now just avoid it whenever possible, usually forking my own thing, and just doing what I need.