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.wiki(a)me.com>wrote;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big time and once because someone merged another patch that superseded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.rex(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:07:18 +0100, Antoine Musso
<hashar+wmf(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l