On Thursday, 16 October 2014 23:43:00 CEST, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In Gerrit, I basically get an ugly command-line interface: I have to push to a magic ref encoding all the information (and IIRC, git-cola only lets me enter the basic refs/for/branchname, the special characters in stuff like %r=f...@example.com confuse it, so I'd have to push from a terminal if I want to use those).
Right, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I'm glad that you prefer web UIs over CLI tools. I happen have it the other way round. I'm sure there are other people like you, and I'm also sure there are other people like me.
Would it work for you to use git-cola for your initial push? You can use Gerrit's web UI for setting reviewers and what not once the initial push is done. That should require roughly as much work as your existing RB workflow -- you still have to get the patch and somehow upload it to the RB/Gerrit. The only difference is Gerrit's `git push` vs. RB's `git format-patch` and a manual upload through your browser (you don't appear to use rb-tools, and therefore I'm not proposing `git gpush` as an alternative for you).
I'm surprised that you find shuffling around patch files by hand easier, but use whatever you prefer by all means.
Setting reviewers requires a special command-line-style parameter appended to the ref that is found in the documentation (that %r= thing). There is also no autocompletion nor client-side validation of the reviewer nicks/addresses, unlike on ReviewBoard's friendly web interface.
You might want to give Gerrit's web interface a try. Gerrit supports adding reviewers (with autocompletion and validation) in there, too. There's an "Add.." button in the top-middle, next to the list of the current reviewers.
Cheers, Jan -- Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
