61–70 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what Gerrit gets them that Github doesn't have natively, too.
Go team member here. I've used five different code review tools, and Github is the worst of the five. I regularly bug them (Github) about this, and they know it. I hear rumors they've been working on it a lot. Github's review mechanisms barely scratch the surface of what's possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of things lacking about GitHub's code review process (pull requests). Off the top of my head: - Merging a pull request (almost) always creates a merge commit, polluting the change history. Gerrit will automatically rebase the changes atop the master branch head, leaving a nice linear history. - Pull requests require the contributor to create a public fork of the repository they're committing to. I can…
I'm really curious to give Gerrit a try. Is it like the existing Rietveld system used for Go? - I've been using the "apply mail" flow to avoid merge commits and to squash commits when appropriate (based on Nathaniel Talbott's post http://blog.spreedly.com/author/ntalbott/#.VGVhz5PF_Zs ). It will be nice to have something automatic. - At least contributors with the commit bit can just create a feature branch and a pul…
Does anyone know what code review system they are using with github?
I'm curious what Gerrit gets them that Github doesn't have natively, too.
then I moved to company that uses github. it's really a big shift. GitHub is not as intuitive and It has a long learning curve. a lot of it was time needed to adjust but I really miss gerrit.
gerrit makes it so clear what commits need reviews. in github it's just a list of pull requests. did I comment already? does this need approval? is this already approved by someone else? who? all of these are difficult to see in github but instantly obvious in gerrit.
then at the code level, gerrit uses my whole browser window so on a 30in I can side by side diff any file. GitHub has a tiny viewport and I'm constantly scrolling. it's not streamlined for reading at all and once 5+ comments are there you can give up on reading the code. gerrit has an upper limit on comments too before the ui overwhelms the code but it's way higher.
I think gerrits tools for viewing more lines are better, although phabricators are good. gerrit gives me a copy and paste link to check out exactly the code I am looking at.
and I really enjoy the patch set system over additional commits. it's a lot clearer in a back and forth setting to see code evolve over time and digging patches without making entirely new commits.
gerrit has built in support for automated and human reviews to leave separate scores. aka, you have to pass the tests and get approval. this doesn't exist in GitHub.
extending gerrit with hooks was crucial to our workflow. luckily github delivers there, but as gerrit is open source you can do more to extend it. especially on the ui side.
I have to admit at first I was blown away how weak github is compared to gerrit. I could not understand why it's so popular. now after about a year on github I get it, I get why it's popular, but is still years behind gerrit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what Gerrit gets them that Github doesn't have natively, too.
There are a lot of things lacking about GitHub's code review process (pull requests). Off the top of my head: - Merging a pull request (almost) always creates a merge commit, polluting the change history. Gerrit will automatically rebase the changes atop the master branch head, leaving a nice linear history. - Pull requests require the contributor to create a public fork of the repository they're committing to. I can…
Google hosting Go on GitHub. Microsoft hosting .NET on GitHub. It must feel like an accomplishment to be implicitly endorsed by these companies. Considering open source's history, you'd think its primary management tool would be open source as well. I guess it's GitHub's combination of accessible design + performant version control + lack of ads + reliability that made it the premium source for anything open source.…
Now we just need Apple's Objective C / Swift to move to github. :) Sorry, not going to happen. :(
The writing's on the wall for Google Code. I don't think I've seen a new feature in several years.
GitHub = YouTube
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go team member here. I've used five different code review tools, and Github is the worst of the five. I regularly bug them (Github) about this, and they know it. I hear rumors they've been working on it a lot. Github's review mechanisms barely scratch the surface of what's possible.
If any of the other ones are public, which did you like best? IIRC, Mondrian was good, but not great.
The writing's on the wall for Google Code. I don't think I've seen a new feature in several years.
Google Code doesn't really fill Google's mission, so it's not absurd for them not to bother once someone who's truly focused on the space has created a superior competitor.
This is a momentous move for Github, especially with Microsoft moving .NET to Github as well. As someone who loves Github immensely, this makes me happy knowing that my favourite service is going to be around for a very long time.
Kudos to the Github team for well and truly making it as the premier code hosting and collaboration tool for developers and lovers of open source. It only goes up from here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now we just need Apple's Objective C / Swift to move to github. :) Sorry, not going to happen. :(
Apple has stated that they're going to open source Swift in the future, who cares if they choose to host it on their own platform.