Opinion: people who staunchly prefer working with Gerrit, and consider anything else inferior, really love working with git-review. And if git-review were not Gerrit specific they would be just as happy with, say, GitLab.
The process that the git-review/Gerrit combo automates/enforces (one commit per change, automatically generated topic branches, change IDs with cross-project uniqueness) could also work just fine by hooking up git-review with the GitLab API.
Anybody else using #Gerrit for code reviews?
Most other #Git servers have a repo browser and render markdown. That'd be really helpful for any non-developers, because we try to keep our documentation in Git, but it's a tough ask for any non-developer to learn how to check out a Git repo, just to read the docs.
Is there anything like that out there? I did a quick search for 3rd party tools and plugins, but couldn't find anything. Readonly mirror to e.g. Forgejo would be the last resort.
Over the past ten days or so, #WindEnergy has provided a large fraction of the #UK's #Electricity demand, often above half of it. Even now, it is providing 47% and keeping #Gas down to single figure in percentage terms. There was a lull overnight but the new #storm, #Gerrit is currently the main source.
Over the past ten days or so, #WindEnergy has provided a large fraction of the #UK's #Electricity demand, often above half of it. Even now, it is providing 47% and keeping #Gas down to single figure in percentage terms. There was a lull overnight but the new #storm, #Gerrit is currently the main source.
well i completely blanked on the command name for "git-review" and had to google for it with a bunch of roundabout search terms like "git gerrit pull request submit command wikimedia" :D
so i think it's time to put aside work catch-up for the day
To think about it, when it comes to #Git, I really hate PR-based workflows provided by #GitHub and #Gitlab. I like squashing my commits and giving them a meaningful message, only to then duplicate that message to PR body, and force-push on amends... All the jumping around PRs is just ugh, not to mention reviewing.
I really want to look into stacked commits workflow, like #Gerrit and stuff, but it's all self-hosted and not widely used...
@theresnotime Cause it is not a wiki! Your comment is stored in git which does not play well with rewriting history. Then maybe the edit can be made a new comment with some logic to instruct to discard the old one. That would need a bunch of code for sure :) #gerrit
If your projects pretends to live on #GitHub, but you're making developers contribute via #Gerrit, who hurt you and why aren't you going to therapy instead
@larsmb Some have the opposite view really. #gerrit has the same process.
Github: fork, clone, create branch, pile up patches, push branch, open web browser, ask for merge request which has the list of commits.
Gerrit: clone, create branch, pile up patches, push to the special refs/for/<name of target branch>/<topic>, creates one change per commit tagged with <topic>
An advantage is you can get the first commit merged and you do not have to force push updates.