Re: FYI: Status of gdb usage of gerrit

[Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>]

* Jonathan Nieder:

> 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?

I'm confused.  Is this question in response to what I wrote, or to
what was discussed elsewhere in the thread?

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

I don't think Gerrit offers anything comparable to what Patchwork
does, so the issue I raised in the quote above will persist because
the mailing list discussion has to be reviewed on the mailing list.
I'm not sure if a review tool whose state reports you can't trust is
all that useful.  I think if we want to use Gerrit, we would have to
require that objections to Gerrit-managed changes would have to be
recorded in Gerrit.

Regarding the larger issue of configuration, I'm aware that we have
barely scratched the surface.  However, we do not have a dedicated
process engineering team that could work out what we need.  To me,
this suggests that we are largely stuck with what's available out of
the box.  (Even finding someone who would host Gerrit for us turns out
to be difficult.)