| I used to work at a company that did 100% of code reviews on gerrit, and by 100% I mean we had a requirement all commits be approved so I spent a lot of time in gerrit. then I moved to company that uses github. it's really a big shift. GitHub is not as intuitive and It has a long learning curve. a lot of it was time needed to adjust but I really miss gerrit. gerrit makes it so clear what commits need reviews. in github it's just a list of pull requests. did I comment already? does this need approval? is this already approved by someone else? who? all of these are difficult to see in github but instantly obvious in gerrit. then at the code level, gerrit uses my whole browser window so on a 30in I can side by side diff any file. GitHub has a tiny viewport and I'm constantly scrolling. it's not streamlined for reading at all and once 5+ comments are there you can give up on reading the code. gerrit has an upper limit on comments too before the ui overwhelms the code but it's way higher. I think gerrits tools for viewing more lines are better, although phabricators are good. gerrit gives me a copy and paste link to check out exactly the code I am looking at. and I really enjoy the patch set system over additional commits. it's a lot clearer in a back and forth setting to see code evolve over time and digging patches without making entirely new commits. gerrit has built in support for automated and human reviews to leave separate scores. aka, you have to pass the tests and get approval. this doesn't exist in GitHub. extending gerrit with hooks was crucial to our workflow. luckily github delivers there, but as gerrit is open source you can do more to extend it. especially on the ui side. I have to admit at first I was blown away how weak github is compared to gerrit. I could not understand why it's so popular. now after about a year on github I get it, I get why it's popular, but is still years behind gerrit. |