On 25 July 2012 10:39, Ryan Lane <rlan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But do we have a plan for improving Gerrit in a substantial way?
Currently the platform guys are too busy to even report bugs upstream. > I'm not sure I agree with the claim that this seriously undercuts > productivity. Is there any data to back this up? There is, and I wonder how you cannot be aware of that. Let me repeat what I've said before. I spent countless hours preparing translatewiki.net for git. Updating and comitting to hundreds of repositories takes minutes. I'm glad we were able to automate that, except that it took two months to get it working as it was supposed to work right after the switch. 3rd party users (me included) all still left out in the cold. There are docs or scripts to manage installation with subset of extensions from svn and git. Barely a day goes by without someone having some kind of problem with git or gerrit. And then we have these discussions about it. Where is the solution for my review workflow? Ever since the switch I spend more time on code review to review less code. On individual level the wasted productivity might not be much, (but it is: [1][2]), but adding it all together - that is a lot. In your mind, do a rough estimate of all the time spent on preparing and executing the switch, all the time spend on learning and solving the issues. Then convert that to dollars and you get rough price tag for the switch. [1] Each new person needs to spend tens of hours to learn to use our GiGeGat effectively - if they don't give up [2] Some people have waited for commit access and creation of new repositories for multiple days -Niklas -- Niklas Laxström _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
