-1 for reasons listed by others. I think Gerrit's great, and I like the idea of peer code reviews, but my gut feel is this doesn't gel well with an open source project (happy to review examples where it's being used…)
Coud we maybe enable gerrit for specific pieces of code? e.g. we should probably keep a closer eye on modifications to things like cloud-core… Worth considering: by not using a review process for all code, what percentage of software defects will we miss? John On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I like to propose that we setup gerrit as the review mechanism. Here are my > reasons > > - Committer status in Apache is a reflection of one's commitment to the > community, not a reflection of understanding of code. So to me just because > you have committer status shouldn't mean code does not need review. Chip's > been doing a great job monitoring the merges and commits but one person > handling all that just means things will slip through. > - This also has the side effect of contributors' code contribution to be > treated as a second class citizen with delays in reviews because review is > not common place within our community. > - Direct commits have to be reverted if there are -1 votes, directly > impacting the time and effort of the code contributor. > > It makes a lot of sense to make code commit and review a normal process in > the CloudStack Community. > > --Alex > > > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service o: 415.315.9385 @johnlkinsella
