On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Thiago Farina <tfransosi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 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? > >>> 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. That information has nothing to do with reviews. That's patch state-tracking. > 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? Irrelevant for git. > - If I click on Side-by-side I get a nice diff view interface that > plan text email does NOT give me. Not useful. > - Was it reviewed/approved (+1, +2)? You can see the same in a mail thread. > - It can be merged by one click. Irrelevant for git. > - The interface also provide the command line to download/apply the > patch for me. Not useful. > - 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'? Who knows And if there is, who knows if it's valid. And none of those points has anything to do with code *review*. All these points are about state-tracking, and that can be implemented *on top* of the mailing list, for example through patchwork: http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/1531/ That's if somebody actually cared about that, but that doesn't seem to be the case. >> 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. ;) Indeed, Gmail is one of the many ways you can review a patch. You clik reply, you add the comments in line, and click send. Couldn't be easier. >>> 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. Except you, of course. > 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? gnus/emacs/notmuch/thunderbird/Gmail, and pretty much every mail client out there. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html