On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think you can decide to change away from gerrit without having an idea of what we want to use instead. As I understand it, we're on gerrit because it's the least-bad option. To show that it's no longer the least bad option, you need to find a product that is less bad.
Precisely. Since my stated bias is to stay on Gerrit, I'm not the best person to propose the alternative, but suffice it to say, we're going to have to have a much more buttoned-down case for the alternative if yet another migration is in the cards.
If we stay on Gerrit, we plan to make investments in those areas that we've identified as deficient. However, we shouldn't make the decision to stay on Gerrit based on vaporware - we should evaluate Gerrit as it is today, and assume that any changes we propose are harder than they appear on the surface. That also means evaluating the *other* tools as they are today, as well, and assuming that any changes we need to *those* tools are harder than they appear on the surface.
Rob