4 ms·
> GitHub is painful for non-trivial reviews. That may very well be the case. But note how you said for non-tivial reviews, whereas in the presentation about go
by wereHamster 12y ago
> GitHub is painful for non-trivial reviews.
That may very well be the case. But note how you said for non-tivial reviews, whereas in the presentation about go they said in general (see the line I quoted in my original comment). And argue that the vast majority of pull requests on GitHub are simple ones which don't need much discussion, so in general the GitHub UI works just fine. I don't have any hard numbers to back up my claim.
- enneff 12y ago> And argue that the vast majority of pull requests on GitHub are simple ones which don't need much discussion, so in general the GitHub UI works just fine. Right. And what you say validates my exact point: "pull request culture is not about code review." If all you want to do is cast your eye over it and click "merge", it works great. That's not how we work, though.
- wereHamster 12y agoIf you said "GitHub pull requests don't fit our culture" or "The GitHub pull request UI is insufficient for our needs" then it'd accept that. Both are perfectly valid reasons for preferring Gerrit. But placing this blanket statement about the whole "pull request culture" is just wrong.