Hi Vadim,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 04:50:27PM -0700, Vadim Bendebury wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 6:53 AM Daniel Gröber dxld@darkboxed.org wrote:
Honestly this gerrit thing may work OK for companies where people are properly incentivized to do their assigned reviews or people in the in-group that know who to poke to get things moving, but for outside contributors the experience is even more fundamentally broken than the email/ML patch workflow and that's saying something.
I am curious how is gerrit review worflow is more broken than the emai/ML patch worflow, i.e. what do you think is better in the latter?
I expanded on this in my reply to Martin:
The email-based git workflow (which GH copied fairly well) does things right here by having the "default" be for people to get notified of all project activity and sending reviews being as easy as an email reply.
This paves the way to anyone becoming a maintainer/reviewer simply by being one without needing any "permission".
Don't get me wrong, the email workflow without any additional tooling around it (patchwork or lists.sr.ht's patch support etc.) has it's own problems but in my mind community building is more important for FLOSS projects than a lot of other cosiderations when it comes to collaboration tools/infrastructure.
I find gerrit uniquely lacking here. The fact that it just isn't a tool that's commonly used as opposed to say GH/GL/G☕ doesn't help there but isn't the only problem.
Another is this: Something I do when I get to know a project is subscribe to the ML or equivalent and passively watch patches, reviews and banter to get a feel for how things are done here. I have no idea how you would do this with gerrit other than by actively adding yourself to CC on patches (which I feel is too visible to really be an equivalent) or actively deathscrolling through the patch lists, which I'm (personally) not going to remember to do periodically.
Perhaps I'm just exceptionally gerrit challanged?
--Daniel