Should we re-start the "lets migrate to github" discussion? P.S. no, this is not a troll attempt, I am trying to understand if the costs of not getting quality volunteers is worth the benefits of gerrit, or if the two-system solution would solve all perceived complexities. Moreover, I do not know github well enough to even suggest one over the other.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Matthew Bowker <matthewrbowker.w...@me.com>wrote: > Hi, all! > > "Then, if a developer is not willing to learn Gerrit, its code is probably > not worth the effort of integrating github/gerrit. That will just add some > more poor quality code to you review queues." "Submitting a patch to gerrit > and even fixing it after code review is not that hard. (Of course any more > complicated operations like rebasing do suck, but you hopefully won't be > doing that with your first patch.)" If I may, I'd like to respectfully > disagree with these statements. > > For context, I'm a new Mediawiki developer who got a labs/Gerrit/LDAP > account late last Fall. Since that time, I've submitted exactly five > patches. Of those five, two were abandoned, once because Gerrit screwed up > big time and once because someone merged another patch that superseded > mine. Two have been merged, both were minor English translation changes. > One is still sitting, waiting for me to re-base (It was my third patch… > I'm scared to re-base because I don't want to screw something up). I did > have to re-base on my first patch, thankfully; someone walked me through > the process on IRC. > > I double-checked my code for consistency in all major browsers; in OSX, > Ubuntu linux, and Windows; read and re-read the style guidelines. I can > confidently say it was not poor quality. > > So, why am I not trying to learn Gerrit or try to submit patches? Because > it's not worth my time. The interface is so far outside of what I'm used > to, and it's just so touchy. By comparison, GitHub has a solid, no frills, > Mac app that handles all of the important stuff. And, even when I > committed to GitHub by command line, there was no way I could "Merge branch > 'master' of ssh://gerrit.wikimedia.org:29418/mediawiki/core" by > miss-typing a re-base <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/37684/>. > > So, having GitHub is almost essential for folks who don't want to - or > can't - understand or work with Gerrit. And closing off GitHub (or viewing > their patches as "poor quality") will close of developers - like be - who > are having trouble with Gerrit. > > Just my two cents. Thanks for reading. > > Matthew Bowker > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthewrbowker > > On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński <matma....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:07:18 +0100, Antoine Musso <hashar+...@free.fr> > wrote: > > > >> I guess the whole idea of using GitHub is for public relation and to > >> attract new people. Then, if a developer is not willing to learn > >> Gerrit, its code is probably not worth the effort of us integrating > >> github/gerrit. That will just add some more poor quality code to your > >> review queues. > > > > This a hundred times. I manage a few (small) open-source projects at > GitHub, and most of the patches I get are not even up to my standards (and > those are significantly lower than WMF's ones). > > > > Submitting a patch to gerrit and even fixing it after code review is not > that hard. (Of course any more complicated operations like rebasing do > suck, but you hopefully won't be doing that with your first patch.) > > > > -- > > Matma Rex > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
