Which review-tool do you suggest Michael? Any other alternatives that are
better? Don't tell me email :-)

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Michael Adam <ob...@samba.org> wrote:

> On 2016-10-14 at 11:44 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> > > I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs
> us to
> > > fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on
> the
> > > data from the commit message is folly.
> >
> > Eventhough we all seem to agree that statistics based on commit messages
> > is not correct,
>
> I think it is the best we can currently offer.
> Let's be honest: Gerrit sucks. Big time!
> If gerrit is no more, the git logs will survive.
> Git is the common denominator that will last,
> with all the tags that the commit messages carry.
> So for now, I'd say the more tags we can fit into
> git commit mesages the better... :-)
>
> > it looks like it is an incentive to get reviewing valued
> > more. We need to promote the reviewing work somehow, and this is one way
> > to do it.
> >
> > Forking Gerrit is surely not the right thing.
>
> Right. Avoid it if possible. Did I mention gerrit sucks? ;-)
>
> Cheers - Michael
>
>


-- 
Pranith
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
maintainers@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers

Reply via email to