[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
My
story begins a year ago. I was young git noob back then.
Just
as it’s with every new thing you encounter you are eager to try it and get to its
limits. Along with git there seemed to be a number of add-ons. Many visual
tools to help you wrap your head around the swarm of branches and,
interestingly, a code review tool called Gerrit. It promised to make your code
reviews easier than ever and simplify your git experience. They were really
exciting times and I had the luck to try the full package in a productive
environment.
Nowadays
I feel a little less noobier about git :-) and had close to an year of Gerrit
experience.
I’ve
seen many positives, like
- just one-click submit after a successful review,
- out-of-the-box shared review responsibility among all committers,
- really fast
turn-around for the unsuccessful reviews(it’s so easy to build on top of the
previous patch and resubmit for a new review)
- and the ability to integrate with
build voters that will validate the commit.
On
the other hand there are problems too, here are just some of them.
- To use Gerrit you
need to add Change-Id attribute to your commit messages. No worries here –
there’s a git hook that can do this automatically… but not for merges. So to
stay out of trouble rebasing is the way to go.
- Displaying merge diffs need more
work – sometimes these are empty(when merging two branches), on other occasions
they don’t contain conflicting files.
- The way Gerrit handles dependencies between changes feels unnatural. A specific
characteristic of Gerrit is that it stays between your local git repository and
the origin, acting as Purgatory. For some reason developers are allowed to
build new changes on top of changes still in Gerrit(not submitted to origin).
Now this is where your life can turn into hell. This is a problem people stumble
into amazingly often(everyday). Such situations have many solutions but from
experience I can assure you most people just start over, abandoning their previous effort.
I’m
well aware most of these are simply usability issues and you can easily avoid
them by following the recommended rulebook( + other rulebooks you may have),
but it’s a fact this complicates devs’ lives without obvious need to.
Personally,
I love my console git workflow(occasionally + SourceTree). It just works
whatever I do. I know the simple things are simple to do, but I can also do
complex ones if I need to. I can undo anything and don’t need a rulebook “just
to be safe”. To me Gerrit is like a little mosquito in my calm git room. I can
live with it but it’s a bit annoying.
Having
said that I strongly believe Gerrit can one day deliver and actually make my
workflow simpler and reviews easier, I just feel it isn’t there yet.
From
Virgo perspective, if you think we can try Gerrit in the current state of the
repos(moving them was mentioned?), we can try and see how it goes. But if it
requires more serious effort I would vote we wait for now.
Best
Regards
Bobby
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Glyn Normington
<gnormington@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2011 at 08:24, Glyn Normington wrote:
Gerrit is available on a limited, bleeding-edge basis:
Since we've discussed using gerrit in Virgo before, I'm inclined to volunteer the kernel as a trial repository. What do others thinks, particularly those with experience of Gerrit?
Regards,
Glyn
_______________________________________________
virgo-dev mailing list
_______________________________________________
virgo-dev mailing list
virgo-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/virgo-dev