Re: FYI: Status of gdb usage of gerrit

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder at gmail dot com>]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> I think this dual setup is too confusing.  People will ack patches on
> one side of the fence that have been vetoed on the other side.

I guess I'm confused about the problem you're describing here.  Gerrit
allows pushing changes without review if configured to do so (and will
do the right thing to close the review by looking up its Change-Id,
etc), so why would we want to be bypassing Gerrit instead of doing
that?

There's definitely value in a tool working out of the box as a drop-in
replacement for the workflows we're used to.  But unless we define the
tool ourselves, that's pretty unlikely --- it's much more likely that
we will have to do some configuration work to get *any* tool to
provide the workflow we're looking for.  I'm not sure we've done the
work to define our requirements, to ask Gerrit upstream
<repo-discuss@googlegroups.com> about whether those are a good fit for
Gerrit and if so how to configure it to fulfill them, etc.

Instead, we seem to be evaluating this initial experiment as though it
is all that Gerrit has to offer.

(I don't have any strong opinions about what tool and workflow will
work best for glibc --- I'd have the same reaction if we were having
the same discussion about patchwork, for example.)

Thanks,
Jonathan