Live data from Hacker News

Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

beepsend.com

11–20 of 168 posts

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#11

The process might seem more complex initially but think of it like this: If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request Annndddd we're done - its easy to make a pull request from a branch; this person has no idea what they're doing. In addition, the new GitHub code review tools addr…

Does the new GitHub code review tool handle rebased commits like Gerrit does via "patch sets"? That seems like it would be really useful.

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#13
post #9

What I miss in article is for how long they are on it. Is author after peak of inflated expectations? I have used Gerrit in my previous team and it did not worked so well. Hanging vetos on -2 are not that nice when you have to push feature forward, like instead of blocking it someone else could just fix it, by the time you talked person who put -2 to change it to -1. But maybe with more mature team it would not be a…

We've been using it since May 2015. Vetos work well for us. We push new releases every week and often there are dependencies between the reviews (front-end waiting for a vetoed back-end review) which results in them being a non-issue (discussions happen frequently and updates are coming in quickly).

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#14

The process might seem more complex initially but think of it like this: If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request Annndddd we're done - its easy to make a pull request from a branch; this person has no idea what they're doing. In addition, the new GitHub code review tools addr…

Does the new GitHub code review tool handle rebased commits like Gerrit does via "patch sets"? That seems like it would be really useful.

I know they've talked about implement something similar. Since the Open letter to GitHub a lot have changed and I wouldn't be surprised to see GitHub support most of what Gerrit has (and more) in a near future.

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#15

The process might seem more complex initially but think of it like this: If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request Annndddd we're done - its easy to make a pull request from a branch; this person has no idea what they're doing. In addition, the new GitHub code review tools addr…

What's wrong about what he said? Which step can you omit?

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#16
I use gerrit daily. It's a good tool once you learn it but as an end user I find it has some usability issues. I would very much recommend it though for teams. You'd need someone to instill good code review culture in your team. It dictates the +1/+2 review flow so you have to adhere to that for it to be a natural fit.

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#17

The process might seem more complex initially but think of it like this: If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request Annndddd we're done - its easy to make a pull request from a branch; this person has no idea what they're doing. In addition, the new GitHub code review tools addr…

This is not the only argument in this piece — I'd even argue that it's a minor one. It hardly makes sense to discredit the author and this article based on this GitHub misconception.

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#18

The process might seem more complex initially but think of it like this: If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request Annndddd we're done - its easy to make a pull request from a branch; this person has no idea what they're doing. In addition, the new GitHub code review tools addr…

What's wrong about what he said? Which step can you omit?

It's not that any of those steps can be omitted, it's that those steps overall are not difficult or complex.

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#19

"If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request." You don't have to do this with Github. Just clone directly to your local machine. Also, you don't have to use git flow when using Github. I think git flow seems to be the real culprit of the symptoms you have identified.

Exactly. There's multiple way of working together with Git/Hub. Gitflow is not a bible, but a customization workflow that should be adopted to the team.

Re: Abandoning Gitflow and GitHub in favour of Gerrit

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong about what he said? Which step can you omit?

It's not that any of those steps can be omitted, it's that those steps overall are not difficult or complex.

Sure, but the author literally says "pushing to a special branch might seem more complex, but consider X." Those steps are more complex than pushing to a special branch.
Post reply on HN