[ozim]

What I miss in article is for how long they are on it. Is author after peak of inflated expectations?

I have used Gerrit in my previous team and it did not worked so well. Hanging vetos on -2 are not that nice when you have to push feature forward, like instead of blocking it someone else could just fix it, by the time you talked person who put -2 to change it to -1. But maybe with more mature team it would not be a problem.

[distances]

I think there's something amiss in your development process if you feel you can merge changes that have -1. What's the point of a review in this case?

There's always hurry, but skipping reviews (and often unit testing too) is a sure way to make sure you'll keep busy fire-fighting in the future.

[xintron]

We've been using it since May 2015. Vetos work well for us. We push new releases every week and often there are dependencies between the reviews (front-end waiting for a vetoed back-end review) which results in them being a non-issue (discussions happen frequently and updates are coming in quickly).

[jasonlotito]

We've been using Gerrit since 2011, and it's worked really well this entire time. It does require communication if you have different features in different patches, but frankly, it's light years ahead of anything GitHub still has to offer in terms of pure code reviewing capability.