On 6/27/12 8:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:24:21PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
It'd be really great if we could first improve Gerrit to handle the
patch series workflow in a better way. Without such a change, pushing
patch series to Gerrit is really no fun for anyone :/
Yep, no argument that Gerrit could do with some improvements, but having
submitted a number of non-trivial patch series to Nova, I don't think
current Gerrit UI is a complete blocker to adoption. It is not ideal,
but it isn't too painful if you're aware of what to look for. I think
the main problem is that since the patch dependancies are not obvious
in the UI, reviewers tend to miss the fact that they're reviewing a
patch that's part of a series.
I agree that patchsets are better than monolithic patches. Today,
though, I am working on a 3-patch set and the process is driving me crazy.
a) Any time Jenkins has a hiccup, I have to resubmit the entire
patchset. This obscures any reviews or votes that might be attached to
other patches in the set.
b) Similarly, any time I change a single patch in the set, I have to
resubmit the whole set, which causes review history to be obscured, even
for those patches which have not changed at all.
Case b) would be entirely solved via a fix to this:
http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=71. That would also
help with a) but not resolve it entirely... the best solution to a)
would be a 'retrigger' button in Jenkins or a 'prompt Jenkins to
re-review' button in Gerrit. The fact that people (including me) are
submitting trivial edits to patches only in order to nudge Jenkins is
pretty stupid.
-A
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
