"Daniel P. Berrange" <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> It should be fairly evident to most people that the volume of >> patches flowing through the qemu-devel mailing list is continually >> increasing, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to track which >> patches have been applied over time. This is particularly a problem >> where patchsets have dependencies on other patchsets which haven't >> yet been applied to git master, which can then cause merge conflicts >> due to length of time taken for the final series to be merged. >> >> Is it time for QEMU to start looking at tools such as gerrit to help >> manage this process? There seems to be an increasing number of ping >> requests for outstanding patches (including my own) which don't get >> applied for weeks, and often even months because they target less >> popular platforms/subsystems and so don't always get the attention >> of the committers. > > Having had to use Gerrit for a long time on OpenStack, I'd never > willingly use it on a project I was in charge of for a number > of reasons > > - No practical integration with email based workflows for people > who don't want to use web UIs to comment. You can download patches > from tool using to view the code outside the UI, but to actually > comment you need to use the RSI-inducing, pointy-clicky web UI.
"It's dead, Jim." > - Poor handling of patch series - it shows dependancies between If the dead could get any deader, this one would now be. > patches but that is basically all it does, and even that has > poor UI. People frequently review 1 single patch never noticing > that its part of a patch series. There's no way to get a view of > all patches in a series ordered correctly. If you tag them with > a topic, you can view all patches in the topic, but it randomly > re-orders the patches, making it basically useless. > > - Poor UI for browsing through historical comments on previous > versions of the patch. The comments are split between multiple > web page views so you again have pointy-clicky hell trying to > read through historical comments. And deader again. > - Poor UI for browsing/querying pending patches. Reviewers typically > find themselves having to write external/command line tools to > query gerrit in order to workaround its limited UI. *Boggle* > So sure, gerrit can track every single patch submitted and tell you > if it is applied or not, but having used it, I can't say that it is > a net win overall, particularly if your development process is heavily > using large patch series. I think this system would reduce the time I spend on reviewing patches sharply. Sounds like a huge win to me!
