Re: Reviews on mailing-list

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2012, 12:14 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2P-nhAGgj9nuJ3cKqb6+enAthwiUNS8QTZn8MP1poJ2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACnwZYekU0CYnqQT8L2siJbUsn=T9qowgth94TWc8KN472Ziag@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Felipe Contreras

Show 6 quoted lines

>> Personally I think reviews on the mailing list is far superior than
>> any other review methods. I've even blogged about it and all the
>> reasons[1]. Gerrit is better than bugzilla, but it still requires a
>> web browser, and logging in.
>>
> Requiring a web browser is a huge requirement, ham??

Yes. Today people can use any mail interface: web, console-based, graphical. They can use Gmail clients in their phone, or IMAP, or whatever.

Requiring everyone to use a web browser would limit the amount of ways people can review patches. Also, not everyone has javascript enabled in their browser (I assume Gerrit needs that).

> 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.

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

> Switching to Gerrit would mean everyone would
> be using the same tool instead of anyone using its own email client
> (gmail, mutt, thunderbird, whatever...)

Yes, that's bad.

> and having to figure out git
> format-patch, git send-email (--reply-to where?).

No need to figure anything.

% git config sendemail.to git@vger.kernel.org % git send-email @{upstream}..

Done.

> 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.

-- 
Felipe Contreras