| >Because those are two unrelated fields, and one is distinctly not productive. I beg to differ: they are both about solving problems; one set of problems (setting up development environment) is strictly easier in terms of cognitive load and actual technical ability than the other (compiler development). If you cannot solve problems from the first set, you simply cannot solve problems from the last. >And comments (from current contributors no less): Likewise, there are comments from different contributors, who claim that the current approach is better than GitHub: >Agree with @ianlancetaylor that Gerrit does provide a better way to review patches. >I've worked in some places where we've migrated from GH Pull Requests to Gerrit for the reason that GH Pull Requests (until very very recently) were not ideal for a formal review process. Even with the recent changes, the current PR system in GH does not manage revisions of a changeset well. For example, Gerrit includes the commit message as part of a review which is arguably the most important part of keeping a clean and detailed history. Arguably, there are more people who are in favour of the Gerrit, rather than GitHub, even among those, who have tried both systems. |
My car won't start. Shouldn't Google solve that first, before attempting to further improve search results? It's really easy to solve. (I lost the key)