Lars Aronsson
<lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
On 2012-06-06 00:19, Diederik van Liere wrote:
A workflow where engineers have to bug a Gerrit
admin to do something
is a broken workflow:
As something of an outsider/newcomer, I hear two very different
stories. The first is the story of all the good reasons why
Linus Torvalds created git, how it is fully decentralized and
asynchronous, and how bad it was to work with SVN. The other
story is gerrit, and how everything must now go through this
bottleneck of new centralization. There's a conflict here, that
needs to be sorted out. Does Linus Torvalds really use gerrit?
No, he does not. He uses email workflow to manage patches.
Gerrit tries to do something contrary a bit to the original
git philosophy - it tries to manage commits (trees of files)
as patches (changes to the code), it also encourages
that developers work one-perfect-commit at a time instead
of a "feature branch".
I am not saying it's a bad or impossible workflow but
it seems to be a bitter dissapointment for people coming
from different background (say, github-like pull-requests).
I would say gerrit puts a cap on a typical git workflow.
Hey, it's even difficult to review and approve changes
off-line.
//Saper