On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> The way I see it, keeping review and committing/pushing separate is a
> good thing, and removes a lot of the concerns about hosting a review
> platform as it is sufficient with read-access to repositories.
>
> Thanks for showing at lea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/11/15 14:24, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Which workflow do you mean? Most features seem optional, allowing
> people to work as they wish.
It's been a while since I looked at it outside of GHC, so please bear
in mind these things might have chang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/02/2015 01:26 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 02/11/15 09:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 11/01/2015 12:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for
>>> pull requests and code review and su
Monday 02 Nov 2015 09:29:48, Duncan wrote :
> Patrice Clement posted on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:33:49 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > [gerrit]
> >
> > Anyway, just my 2 cents on the topic. Have a look and you'll see in
> > terms of features, I think it's on a par with Github. And it's open
> > source. ;)
>
