On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Andrew Garrett <agarrett(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I don't think you can decide to change away from
gerrit without having an
idea of what we want to use instead. As I understand it, we're on gerrit
because it's the least-bad option. To show that it's no longer the least
bad option, you need to find a product that is less bad.
Precisely. Since my stated bias is to stay on Gerrit, I'm not the
best person to propose the alternative, but suffice it to say, we're
going to have to have a much more buttoned-down case for the
alternative if yet another migration is in the cards.
If we stay on Gerrit, we plan to make investments in those areas that
we've identified as deficient. However, we shouldn't make the
decision to stay on Gerrit based on vaporware - we should evaluate
Gerrit as it is today, and assume that any changes we propose are
harder than they appear on the surface. That also means evaluating
the *other* tools as they are today, as well, and assuming that any
changes we need to *those* tools are harder than they appear on the
surface.
Rob