3 ms·

You mentioned a lot of Gerrit features but you didn't mention two: - it stores review information as "git notes", so you can see in the repository itself with

You mentioned a lot of Gerrit features but you didn't mention two: - it stores review information as "git notes", so you can see in the repository itself with `git show` who reviewed which commit and what score it was given, even though it doesn't alter the commit hashes by editing the commit message - you can have arbitrarilty many different types of review, for example a QA test score that's separate from a code review score also separate from unit test scores. Much better than the all-builds-green other options offer Gerrit is the best code review tool I've ever used and I don't get why people copy Github instead of Gerrit.

aseipp 3y ago
It also has a significant amount of detail in subtle ways, some that can't really be appreciated until you try it. My go-to example of this is the "Attention Set," which came directly from Google's Critique. In short, it just tells you "Who should look at this change next," i.e. if you publish a change, it's the reviewers turn. They leave comments you need to fix, so now it's your turn. And so on and so forth. That's a feature that, in retrospect, seems instantly obvious and "duh", but it's something that actually is not obvious to the designer unless you have spent a lot of time in the general problem space. Gerrit is a really great, productive tool.