Rob Lanphier wrote:
It appears as though the discussion has continued
apace for the Gerrit
evaluation process:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Gerrit_evaluation
Really ought to get default to HTTPS working...
Thank you everyone for chipping in so far. The
current format is a
mix of talk page and structured discussion, which seems ok for now.
Meatball-ish. :-)
It would appear from reading this page that the only
alternative to
Gerrit that has a serious following is GitHub. Is that the case?
Personally, it seems like Phabricator or Barkeep has the best chance
of dislodging Gerrit, but those won't probably get serious
consideration without a champion pushing them.
I don't use Gerrit much. I occasionally try to use it in the same way that I
once used the CodeReview MediaWiki extension. I laid out some of the
problems I had here: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Gerrit/Problems>.
Gerrit's UI seems to be just about as awful as it can be without it being
outright rejected as a feasible option for code review. It's the Microsoft
approach to UI, where everything is possible, it just takes ten times as
long as it should because it's hidden behind obscure, inaccurate, or
meaningless link terminology or it's collapsed behind some awful menu (that
you don't even realize is a menu for a few months).
If Gerrit's UI can be improved to not be so awful, it would go a long way
toward making it acceptable. The big advantage I see to GitHub is that its
UI actually has sense and decency behind it. It really shouldn't be so
difficult to fix Gerrit's styling. As Daniel said in a previous post, the
fact that it is suggests more fundamental issues with the codebase and its
architecture. I deeply worry about software that can't handle something
basic like CSS in a sane manner (again, the Microsoft approach, heh).
MZMcBride