Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by StavrosK 3724 days ago
What's wrong about what he said? Which step can you omit?
4 comments

It needs the context. I've quoted the whole thing below:

> If you add a new member to your team, they would have to fork the repositories on GitHub, clone them locally, make the changes, push to their own fork and then create the pull request. With Gerrit, you could clone the main repository, do your change and then push it directly to the same remote as you cloned it from.

The objection would be that you can always push to a branch and issue a PR from there in GitHub too. Those steps are identical for both tools in a professional setting.

There are reasons for Gerrit but this isn't one.

Exactly, thanks. My reason for saying I'm done is that, if you haven't yet discovered that GitHub makes it really easy to make a pull request, you're probably not the right person to be criticizing it and proposing a new flow.
You don't need to fork the repository or push to your own fork (if you have write access to the original obviously, but gerrit seems to assume that), intra-repository pull requests are perfectly well supported.

You do need to create the pull request, but that's no different than pushing to a special magical ref.

Forking the repo
It's not that any of those steps can be omitted, it's that those steps overall are not difficult or complex.
Sure, but the author literally says "pushing to a special branch might seem more complex, but consider X." Those steps are more complex than pushing to a special branch.
Just last night I decided not to bother submitting a (tiny, one-line) patch to an open-source project because I didn't feel like going through all that rigmarole. The steps may not seem difficult or complex but they are steps, and they are friction, and eliminating friction is generally a good thing.