This isn't really about Gerrit vs. GitHub. To be clear, we're mainly doing this for CI (i.e. Travis).  

That said, we (the iOS team) plan for our workflow to play to GitHub's strengths—which also happen to be our personal preferences.  In short, this means "amending patches" becomes "pushing another commit onto a branch."   We've run into issues w/ rebasing & amending patches destroying our diff in Gerrit, and problems with multiple people collaborating on the same patch.  We think GitHub will not only provide integrations for free CI, but, as an added bonus, also resolve some of the workflow deficiencies that we've personally encountered with Gerrit.


On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Gergo Tisza <gtisza@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Petr Bena <benapetr@gmail.com> wrote:
Good job, you aren't the only one. Huggle team is using it for quite
some time. To be honest I still feel that github is far superior to
our gerrit installation and don't really understand why we don't use
it for other projects too.

GitHub is focused on small projects; for a project with lots of patches and committers it is problematic in many ways:
* poor repository management (fun fact: GitHub does not even log force pushes, much less provides any ability to undo them)
* noisy commit histories due to poor support of amend-based workflows, and also because poor message generation of the editing interface (Linus wrote a famous rant on that)
* no way to mark patches which depend on each other
* diff view works poorly for large patches
* CR interface works poorly for large patches (no way to write draft comments so you need to do two passes; discussions can be marked as obsolete by unrelated code changes in their vicinity)
* hard to keep track of cherry-picks


_______________________________________________
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l




--
EN Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle
IRC: bgerstle