Re: Reviews on mailing-list

From: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2012, 13:09 UTC
Message-ID: <CACnwZYfP4=Fvt8T0GOEzjTOaEyYF_Ao6e_f02eqO_5_DyzM0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2P-nhAGgj9nuJ3cKqb6+enAthwiUNS8QTZn8MP1poJ2g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> Requiring everyone to use a web browser would limit the amount of ways
> people can review patches.

I don't see that as a limitation as I think everyone has access to a web browser these days, don't have?

Show 6 quoted lines

>> How come that can
>> be an impediment to move forward way of this awkward way of reviewing
>> patches through email?
>
> It's not awkward, it's the most sensible way.
>

The most harder way I think?

Look at this: https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/#/q/status:open+project:chromiumos/platform/power_manager,n,z

There I can go and see many informations that through this mailing list I can't or have to do much more work in order to archive this.

If you open one of the 'patches' you can see some relevant information:
- Who is the owner/author
- Was it verified?
- Is it ready for landing?
- If I click on Side-by-side I get a nice diff view interface that
plan text email does NOT give me.
- Was it reviewed/approved (+1, +2)?
- It can be merged by one click.
- The interface also provide the command line to download/apply the
patch for me.
- Isn't there a reason (implicit there) for Google being using tools
like Gerrit/CodeReview(rietveld)/Mondrian for handling his code
reviews rather than solely by 'email'?

> You just replied to my mail the same way I would reply to a patch.
>

I replied through a web browser by the Gmail interface. ;)

Show 10 quoted lines

>> There are a lot of issues of having to use email for reviewing patches
>> that I think Gerrit is a superior alternative.
>
> There are no issues. It works for Linux, qemu, libav, ffmpeg, git, and
> many other projects.
>
>> And many people are arguing for it!
>
> Nope, they are not.
>

If they weren't then nobody would be suggesting to use Gerrit for handling the review of git patches.

But I think the big resistance comes from the fact that the core developers handle/review the git patches through Gnus/Emacs, so that is enough for them and they don't want to make the switch because of that?