4 ms·

> a pioneering (but no longer new) PR system having used gerrit 10 years ago there's nothing about github's PRs that I like more, today. > code navigation sim

by baq 11mo ago

> a pioneering (but no longer new) PR system having used gerrit 10 years ago there's nothing about github's PRs that I like more, today. > code navigation simply in a web browser this is nice indeed, true. > You write code, and almost everything works effortlessly. if only. GHA are a hot mess because somehow we've landed in a local minimum of pretend-YAML-but-actually-shell-js-jinja-python and they have a smaller or bigger outage every other week, for years now. > why developers like it so much most everything else is much worse in at least one area and the most important thing it's what everyone uses. no one got fired for using github.

delusional 11mo ago
> having used gerrit 10 years ago there's nothing about github's PRs that I like more, today. I love patch stack review systems. I understand why they're not more popular, they can be a bit harder to understand and more work to craft, but it's just a wonderful experience once you get them. Making my reviews work in phabricator made my patchsets in general so much better, and making my patchsets better have improved my communication skills.
CamouflagedKiwi 11mo ago
The main thing I like about Github's PRs is that it's a system I'm already familiar with and have a login/account for. It's tedious going to contribute to a project to find I have to sign up for and learn another system. I've used Gerrit years ago, so wasn't totally unfamiliar, but it was still awkward to use when Go were using it for PRs. Notably that project ended up giving up on it because of the friction for users - and they were probably one of the most likely cases to stick to their guns and use something unusual.
- TheDong 11mo ago
  > Notably [go] ended up giving up on [gerrit] That's not accurate. They more or less only use Gerrit still. They started accepting Github PRs, but not really, see https://go.dev/doc/contribute#sending_a_change_github https://go.dev/doc/contribute#sending_a_change_github > You will need a Gerrit account to respond to your reviewers, including to mark feedback as 'Done' if implemented as suggested The comments are still gerrit, you really shouldn't use Github. The Go reviewers are also more likely than usual to assume you're incompetent if your PR comes from Github, and the review will accordingly be slower and more likely to be rejected, and none of the go core contributors use the weird github PR flow.
  - ncruces 11mo ago
    > The Go reviewers are also more likely than usual to assume you're incompetent if your PR comes from Github I've always done it that way, and never got that feeling.
    - arccy 11mo ago
      there's certainly a higher rejection rate for github PRs
      - foldr 11mo ago
        That seems unsurprising given that it’s the easiest way for most people to do it. Almost any kind of obstacle will filter out the bottom X% of low effort sludge.
      - PunchyHamster 11mo ago
        correlation, not causation. Lowest common denominator way will always get worst quality
        arccy 11mo ago
        sure it's correlation, but the signal-to-noise ratio is low enough that if you send it in via github PR, there's a solid chance of it being ignored for months / years before someone decides to take a look.
  - miroljub 11mo ago
    Many people confuse competence and dedication. A competent developer would be more likely to send a PR using the tool with zero friction than to dedicate a few additional hours of his life to create an account and figure out how to use some obscure.
    - baq 11mo ago
      A competent developer wouldn't call gerrit an obscure tool.
- blibble 11mo ago
  > The main thing I like about Github's PRs is that it's a system I'm already familiar with and have a login/account for. It's tedious going to contribute to a project to find I have to sign up for and learn another system. codeberg supports logging in with GitHub accounts, and the PR interface is exactly the same you have nothing new to learn!
  - cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
    Yeah and this slavish devotion to keeping the existing (broken imho) PR structure from GH is the one thing I most dislike about Forgejo, but oh well. I still moved my project over to Codeberg. GH's PR system is semi-tolerable for open source projects. It's downright broken for commercial software teams of any scale. Like the other commenter: I miss Gerrit and proper comment<->change tracking.
    - blibble 11mo ago
      agreed, the github "innovation", i.e. the pull request interface is terrible for anything other than small changes hopefully codeberg can build on it, and have an "advanced" option
PunchyHamster 11mo ago
I used gerrit a bit at work but any time I want to contribute to OSS project requiring to use it I just send a message with bugfix patch applied and leave, it's so much extra effort for drive by contributions that I don't care. It's fine for code review in a team, not really good in GH-like "a user found a bug, fixed it, and want to send it" contribution scheme

by baq 11mo ago

delusional 11mo ago

> having used gerrit 10 years ago there's nothing about github's PRs that I like more, today. I love patch stack review systems. I understand why they're not more popular, they can be a bit harder to understand and more work to craft, but it's just a wonderful experience once you get them. Making my reviews work in phabricator made my patchsets in general so much better, and making my patchsets better have improved my communication skills.

CamouflagedKiwi 11mo ago

The main thing I like about Github's PRs is that it's a system I'm already familiar with and have a login/account for. It's tedious going to contribute to a project to find I have to sign up for and learn another system. I've used Gerrit years ago, so wasn't totally unfamiliar, but it was still awkward to use when Go were using it for PRs. Notably that project ended up giving up on it because of the friction for users - and they were probably one of the most likely cases to stick to their guns and use something unusual.

TheDong 11mo ago
> Notably [go] ended up giving up on [gerrit] That's not accurate. They more or less only use Gerrit still. They started accepting Github PRs, but not really, see https://go.dev/doc/contribute#sending_a_change_github https://go.dev/doc/contribute#sending_a_change_github > You will need a Gerrit account to respond to your reviewers, including to mark feedback as 'Done' if implemented as suggested The comments are still gerrit, you really shouldn't use Github. The Go reviewers are also more likely than usual to assume you're incompetent if your PR comes from Github, and the review will accordingly be slower and more likely to be rejected, and none of the go core contributors use the weird github PR flow.
- ncruces 11mo ago
  > The Go reviewers are also more likely than usual to assume you're incompetent if your PR comes from Github I've always done it that way, and never got that feeling.
  - arccy 11mo ago
    there's certainly a higher rejection rate for github PRs
    - foldr 11mo ago
      That seems unsurprising given that it’s the easiest way for most people to do it. Almost any kind of obstacle will filter out the bottom X% of low effort sludge.
    - PunchyHamster 11mo ago
      correlation, not causation. Lowest common denominator way will always get worst quality
      - arccy 11mo ago
        sure it's correlation, but the signal-to-noise ratio is low enough that if you send it in via github PR, there's a solid chance of it being ignored for months / years before someone decides to take a look.
- miroljub 11mo ago
  Many people confuse competence and dedication. A competent developer would be more likely to send a PR using the tool with zero friction than to dedicate a few additional hours of his life to create an account and figure out how to use some obscure.
  - baq 11mo ago
    A competent developer wouldn't call gerrit an obscure tool.
blibble 11mo ago
> The main thing I like about Github's PRs is that it's a system I'm already familiar with and have a login/account for. It's tedious going to contribute to a project to find I have to sign up for and learn another system. codeberg supports logging in with GitHub accounts, and the PR interface is exactly the same you have nothing new to learn!
- cmrdporcupine 11mo ago
  Yeah and this slavish devotion to keeping the existing (broken imho) PR structure from GH is the one thing I most dislike about Forgejo, but oh well. I still moved my project over to Codeberg. GH's PR system is semi-tolerable for open source projects. It's downright broken for commercial software teams of any scale. Like the other commenter: I miss Gerrit and proper comment<->change tracking.
  - blibble 11mo ago
    agreed, the github "innovation", i.e. the pull request interface is terrible for anything other than small changes hopefully codeberg can build on it, and have an "advanced" option

PunchyHamster 11mo ago

I used gerrit a bit at work but any time I want to contribute to OSS project requiring to use it I just send a message with bugfix patch applied and leave, it's so much extra effort for drive by contributions that I don't care. It's fine for code review in a team, not really good in GH-like "a user found a bug, fixed it, and want to send it" contribution scheme