Lars Aronsson lars@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