On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Vitaly Repin <vitaly.re...@nokia.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, ext Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Vitaly Repin <vitaly.re...@nokia.com> wrote: >> > I suggest to use bugzilla interface for code reviews: >> > http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/reviewer.html >> >> And I don't like either. I suggest mailing lists for code review, just >> like many successful and dynamic projects do (linux, qemu, ffmpeg, >> vlc): >> http://felipec.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/why-bugzilla-sucks-for-handling-patches/ > > Interesting article. Why don't you like reviews integrated with git > then? Like what gitorious suggests with its merge requests.
That's not integrated with git at all; it's a separate service that requires a authentication, you have to interrupt what you are doing in order to login and review patches, plus it's not like you are constantly checking gitorious, right? So most likely you'll receive email notifications, but you can't review while seeing the notification, you have to switch. Also, Imagine what happens if the server goes down. The most important thing about git is that it's distributed; if a server goes down, or you are not online, your workflow is not blocked. Similarly, you are not bound by the server load, or network efficiency. E-mail is the same thing, you can download or synchronize your inbox, and you can even review patches while offline. Imagine a hard-core kernel developer using mutt and git; he doesn't need to leave the console in order to read and apply patches, nor reply with review comments, or even send new versions of the same patches. The moment he is forced to go to an UI, open a browser, and login to a site, the efficiency is gone. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
