Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> writes: > The more fundamental difference with Gerrit's approach, for me, is that > you're proposing and revising a patch or series of patches and adjusting > it until it appears the way you and reviewers want it to appear in the > target branch's history. Gerrit supplies tooling necessary for comparing > between arbitrary revisions of a patch, so there's no need to heap on > fixes in subsequent commits, you just revise the commit (or series of > related commits) repeatedly until it's in good enough shape to be > merged.
Right, this is what I was talking about with incremental reviews. GitHub now supports showing you only the differences since the last time you reviewed it. I agree that it's not quite as good as Gerrit at showing you deltas between arbitrary revisions of the patch, but (for me at least) it's an 80% solution that gets most of the way there in most situations. I'd love for this to get better, though, for sure. > For me, doing code review long before GitHub existed, it has always > seemed like a social media platform with code hosting bolted on, > struggling to catch up with the features of review-oriented platforms. Yeah, I just ignore all the social media features. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
