Re: Patchwork patch tracking system

Mike Frysinger
2014-08-02T14:25:59Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1744 bytes --]

On Tue 22 Apr 2014 11:37:37 Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> >> FWIW we (some of the google folk) looked at geritt for LLVM and
> >> discarded in favor of phabricator. It seemed to solve a lot of the
> >> problems that we had and allowed communication to and from the mailing
> >> lists for patches which was key for us as we have a similar review
> >> style to gcc/gdb/binutils. We didn't want to remove the ability for
> >> people to send patches to the mailing lists, but yet get a better
> >> review mechanism for large patches/queuing/etc.
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion! I have to say, from the outside,
> > phabricator looks like a pretty interesting option.
>
> I am essentially an outsider here, and I have not used phabricator.
> However, the Chromium project uses Rietveld for codereview:
> https://code.google.com/p/rietveld/ and
> https://codereview.chromium.org/
>
> IIRC, Diego Novillo setup a rietveld instance for GCC:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld

rietveld is terrible imo ;). it has a lot of custom tooling and has
historically been svn-centric, and it isn't as well maintained as gerrit.

> Chromium-OS project uses gerrit and hence I have used both these tools
> and my personal choice is rietveld over gerrit by many a mile.
> Rietveld can be configured to send mails to a watchlist for every
> patch sent out for review and also for every review posting. Hence,
> all review logs can still be saved in a mailing list archive.

the new gerrit-on-borg is much nicer than the old, but it still lacks mailing
list integration ... could post a feature request, but i'm not sure
realistically it'd be solved in a timely manner
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]