Tom Tromey via Overseers <> writes:

> Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried
> Jason> unsuccessfully.
> We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it.  We tried to integrate it
> into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to
> gdb-patches.  I found these somewhat hard to read and in the end we
> agreed not to use it.

Current Gerrit e-mails are pretty nice, with a nice diff of the change.
And patches can be submitted entirely via git, which is not the same as
today but should be acceptable for almost all contributors.  What
doesn't work in Gerrit, as far as I know, is a pure e-mail based
workflow for maintainers.  To approve a patch, maintainers have to go to
a web site and click a button, or they have to run a command line tool
("ssh <host> gerrit review").

> I've come around again to thinking we should probably abandon email
> instead.  For me the main benefit is that gerrit has patch tracking,
> unlike our current system, where losing patches is fairly routine.

You can lose patches in Gerrit quite easily, but at least there is a
dashboard showing all the ones you lost.

I'm definitely a Gerrit fan.


Reply via email to