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 <ob...@samba.org> 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@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel