Hacker News Reader

Comment by axk | Hacker News Reader

Gerrit is solid: https://www.gerritcodereview.com/

Gerrit is good, if opinionated in ways that we have to put work into onboarding for. That said, it only covers a small subset of what Phabricator does -- it's missing the entire issue tracker part, most importantly.

If you're looking for an issue tracker to use with Gerrit, that's open source and developed by Google, you could try Monorail: https://chromium.googlesource.com/infra/infra/+/refs/heads/m...

Ack! Recently moved from Phabricator to Gerrit and deleting Arcanist was a plus.

It'd be nice if it had a tightly integrated issue tracker and CI.

Yeah: the only feature I thought gerrit provided--active blocking code review--is actually the one feature of Phabricator that I had no interest in... I loved all of the other features.

Does it still desperately want you to squash all your patches, or does it do a good job of handling an ordered stack of patches these days?

It does an excellent job handling stacks! You may be mistaking it for Phabricator, which defaults to squashing.

I suspect that JoshTriplett is complaining about the `amend` workflow required to update a single gerrit patch with revisions.

If you're used to the GitHub pull request style, you'd be more likely to make a small commit and add it to the request. In gerrit that approach results in a separate patch for review, which isn't what such a person would want.

(Personally, I've come to appreciate gerrit's model for strongly encouraging building patches that are encapsulated single-reviewable-changes, in a way that lends itself to never having a commit that'd break the build if you landed on it e.g. during a git bisect.... But it's also something that surprises people who've not used gerrit before, in my experience.)

That's part of it. But also, if you start with a 4-patch series, and you want to publish a v2 that's changed to a 3-patch series, Gerrit doesn't seem to handle that very well. In general, I'd prefer if patches are kept together in one review, rather than a separate review for each.

Gerrit handles this perfectly - you can just add the third commit to your stack (and even amend the earlier ones) and it works as expected, adding it to the relation chain.

The UI is atrocious, unfortunately.

Check again - it got a serious makeover recently. It's still far from intutive, but so much better than it used to be.

It's a power user tool that has a slight learning curve.

Gerrit is a code review tool first, with code browsing not being a core focus.

GitHub and others are frequently code browsing tools first, with code review coming second. "Code hosting has look like GitHub" is unfortunately a common myopia.

Phabricator (from the little I used it) seems closer to Gerrit than other code hosting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com