On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Thiago Farina <tfrans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Requiring everyone to use a web browser would limit the amount of ways
>> people can review patches.
> I don't see that as a limitation as I think everyone has access to a
> web browser these days, don't have?
>>> How come that can
>>> be an impediment to move forward way of this awkward way of reviewing
>>> patches through email?
>> It's not awkward, it's the most sensible way.
> The most harder way I think?
> Look at this:
> There I can go and see many informations that through this mailing
> list I can't or have to do much more work in order to archive this.
That information has nothing to do with reviews. That's patch state-tracking.
> If you open one of the 'patches' you can see some relevant information:
> - Who is the owner/author
> - Was it verified?
> - Is it ready for landing?
Irrelevant for git.
> - If I click on Side-by-side I get a nice diff view interface that
> plan text email does NOT give me.
> - Was it reviewed/approved (+1, +2)?
You can see the same in a mail thread.
> - It can be merged by one click.
Irrelevant for git.
> - The interface also provide the command line to download/apply the
> patch for me.
> - Isn't there a reason (implicit there) for Google being using tools
> like Gerrit/CodeReview(rietveld)/Mondrian for handling his code
> reviews rather than solely by 'email'?
Who knows And if there is, who knows if it's valid.
And none of those points has anything to do with code *review*.
All these points are about state-tracking, and that can be implemented
*on top* of the mailing list, for example through patchwork:
That's if somebody actually cared about that, but that doesn't seem to
be the case.
>> You just replied to my mail the same way I would reply to a patch.
> I replied through a web browser by the Gmail interface. ;)
Indeed, Gmail is one of the many ways you can review a patch.
You clik reply, you add the comments in line, and click send. Couldn't
>>> There are a lot of issues of having to use email for reviewing patches
>>> that I think Gerrit is a superior alternative.
>> There are no issues. It works for Linux, qemu, libav, ffmpeg, git, and
>> many other projects.
>>> And many people are arguing for it!
>> Nope, they are not.
> If they weren't then nobody would be suggesting to use Gerrit for
> handling the review of git patches.
Except you, of course.
> But I think the big resistance comes from the fact that the core
> developers handle/review the git patches through Gnus/Emacs, so that
> is enough for them and they don't want to make the switch because of
gnus/emacs/notmuch/thunderbird/Gmail, and pretty much every mail
client out there.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html