On Wednesday 28 January 2015 13:14:14 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > At the moment I must say that I find gerrit's web interface extremely > cumbersome to use. This is something I experienced with both Qt's as well > as KDE's setup. Navigation through the code is difficult, you cannot see > the complete change in one, but have to go through each file. This is > something I consider as unfortunate as normally I prefer reading the > changes to the header before the implementation, but due to alphabetic > ordering we do not have this. Unfortunately when navigating through the > change to get to the header file the implementation is marked as "you have > reviewed it". This is to me quite a step back compared to review board's > code navigation. What I also find bad is that you actually need to know the > "magic" keyboard shortcuts to use it in a sane way. And the shortcuts are > to be honest strange: "]" is a key which is great to use on an English > layout but on many other layouts it's just a very cumbersome to use key. > > I do not like the comment threading of review board, but I consider gerrit > even worse. All comments are collapsed and you have to go to the diff to > read the comments on the code. There is no threading at all involved. On > review board we quite often have threaded discussions, but I cannot see how > this could happen in gerrit. Similar issues marked as done: you get a nice > list of done, done, done done, but actually have to go back to the code > change to see what it's about. I think this is much better done in review > board.
On Wednesday 28 January 2015 14:07:34 Milian Wolff wrote: > Also note that you do not: > > - need to ammend the commit to include a REVIEW: line > - need to specify -g yes when updating reviews > - need to specify the -r $REVIEWID line when updating reviews > - need to update individual commits, each by running rbt post and specifing > the git hash manually > > all in all, this makes it /much/ simpler to use than rbt. I kind of agree with both of these - gerrit makes following discussion an absolute pain, and reviewing code hardly pleasant, but it's automatic change- id assignation, rather than the error-prone REVIEW keyword, is a major plus point. rbt now provides a "stamp" method, and I believe phabricator's tool does as well, but I haven't tried them to see how easy they are (and I'd want them to be automagic). Alex