Which review-tool do you suggest Michael? Any other alternatives that are better? Don't tell me email :-)
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Michael Adam <obnox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2016-10-14 at 11:44 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> > I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us to
> > fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the
> > data from the commit message is folly.
>
> Eventhough we all seem to agree that statistics based on commit messages
> is not correct,
I think it is the best we can currently offer.
Let's be honest: Gerrit sucks. Big time!
If gerrit is no more, the git logs will survive.
Git is the common denominator that will last,
with all the tags that the commit messages carry.
So for now, I'd say the more tags we can fit into
git commit mesages the better... :-)
> it looks like it is an incentive to get reviewing valued
> more. We need to promote the reviewing work somehow, and this is one way
> to do it.
>
> Forking Gerrit is surely not the right thing.
Right. Avoid it if possible. Did I mention gerrit sucks? ;-)
Cheers - Michael
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
