From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3zFDrS2F1WzF0SB for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:19:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w07NJFYp098516 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:19:32 -0500 Received: from e11.ny.us.ibm.com (e11.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.201]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2fbed5qprd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 18:19:32 -0500 Received: from localhost by e11.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:19:31 -0500 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.25) by e11.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.198) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:19:29 -0500 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w07NJSZw49283214; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 23:19:28 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965EFB2054; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from birb.localdomain (unknown [9.81.217.148]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A339AB2046; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1CEFE4EC5DC; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:19:24 +1100 (AEDT) From: Stewart Smith To: Andrew Geissler , Dave Cobbley Cc: OpenBMC Maillist Subject: Re: Gerrit alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <20912a5f-e956-13c3-3fd4-1ba1fe9f1759@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:19:24 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18010723-2213-0000-0000-0000025649BE X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008336; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000244; SDB=6.00971737; UDB=6.00492223; IPR=6.00751687; BA=6.00005765; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00018918; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-01-07 23:19:31 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18010723-2214-0000-0000-000058ADC5BE Message-Id: <87r2r1tfyb.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-07_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1801070347 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.24 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 23:19:36 -0000 Andrew Geissler writes: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Dave Cobbley > wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> I am curious to see peoples input on using github as a code review mechanism >> over gerrit. I see github/openbmc is already used quite well for sprint >> planning and issue tracking, I feel like it would make a lot of sense to use >> it for doing code reviews. As far as I understand it has a mechanism to >> reproduce a similar paradigm to what we currently use today - as far as >> Code-Review, Ok-To-Test, and Verified. >> >> I can see github has made several improvements over the last few years that >> make it much more use-able to teams like us: >> >> - The ability to have approved maintainers for each specific repository with >> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners >> >> - It has the ability to do a rebase-merge, keeping the git tree nice and >> tidy. >> >> - A strong API to tie in additional tools that we may need. >> >> >> Additionally, it will reduce the point of failure from also hosting gerrit. >> >> What are peoples thoughts on using this? > > As the guy who ended up having to maintain the current gerrit server, > I'm all for an alternative :) > > But my problem is I really like gerrit. github has def made some > improvements to the review process though. I see it has per-line > comment ability now. > > I have a pull request out here for a non-gerrit openbmc repo if > someone wants to look around - > https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc-tools/pull/5 > > One thing I really like is how gerrit allows you to iterate over a > commit. Someone makes some comments, you respond, upload a new patch > set. My understanding with github is you basically just keep adding > on new commits in a pull request to address comments. A feature I use > all the time in gerrit is to look at the diff between a patch set I > last reviewed and the latest one. Also, I don't see an obvious > mechanism in github to provide the different score levels > (-2,-1,+1,+2)? The gerrit dashboard is also really nice, providing me > a nice easy way to see what's on my review list and what the current > size and scores of those reviews are (for all repos in openbmc). Basically all those features is why I like review via email and patchwork. You can review/comment as much as you like, anywhere, easily, even offline. As a maintiner, patchwork is invaluable, and passes the "somebody else maintains it" test, while still actually being open. > We also base a lot of our current CI infrastructure off of gerrit > events. I think most of it can be switched over to using github, but > it's not inconsequential. Some of the CI integration in patchwork needs a bit of work though. We need to bribe the grads with something in order to get snowpatch fixed up :) -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.