Hi.
Splitting off from the "serious alternative" thread, I wanted to make note that the view that some hold about Gerrit being a developer-only tool is probably completely wrong and may be contributing to some of the strains and pains we've been seeing.
Much like Bugzilla (and MediaWiki, to be honest), Gerrit is serving (or under-serving) multiple audiences. It is simply not just a developer tool, as I've come to understand it, just as Bugzilla and MediaWiki's CodeReview extension were not just developer tools. Community members are involved and engaged in bug and feature filing in Bugzilla, which is directly linked with Gerrit. When a bug is now marked as resolved, a developer will include a direct link to a Gerrit changeset for the bug filer (and on-lookers) to see. In on-wiki discussions, it was never uncommon for people to cite r1234, which previously directed users to SVN's ViewVC and then subsequently directed users to MediaWiki's CodeReview interface. Now we have people citing gerrit change fads9f008 or whatever in on-wiki discussions.
We have direct and explicit exposure of Gerrit to non-developers.
I think this is a crucial point. It means that it's not only acceptable for non-developers to be involved in discussions about Git front-ends, it's essential that non-developers be involved.
I haven't seen much documentation of Gerrit for non-developers. I started a page here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Documentation (though it's already grown to be more developer-focused).
We need to think more about the "multiple audiences" problem and how to properly address it.
MZMcBride