Talk:Git/Gerrit evaluation

The thing I most hate about gerrit is I can't get a diff like this easily from it: i.e.: A unified diff with about 3 lines of context for all files modified by the commit on a single page. I know I can open diffs in separate tabs for all files involved, but that tends to slooooow down my browser and I personally just don't like it. (perhaps there's a way to do what I want, I'm not sure. gerrit does not have a ui that leads to discoverability of features) Bawolff (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 --Wikinaut (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's one of those things we'd like to add I think... --brion (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually work already being done on this by the folks at Qt (example). It's in the process of being upstreamed, don't know what the status is though. ^demon (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Extensions
Are we concerned about extension development too or are we just focusing on core code? I ask because setting up an extension for Git + Gerrit was a hideous drawn out process compared to setting up a project on GitHub or Gitorious. --Cneubauer (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Extensions are also very much a consideration here. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was a "hideous drawn out process" is more an issue of how we at WMF use Gerrit then an inherit flaw within Gerrit. -- Drdee (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * True. Another point is that extensions that prefer post-commit review instead of pre-commit review lost access to Code Review with the switch to Git/Gerrit. It would be nice to have a review tool that also innately supported post-commit review. --Cneubauer (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We're certainly concerned about it, in part because major portions of Wikimedia's features are extensions. :) Making it easier to set up new extensions on the system is one particular component that needs to be improved, it's still a bit painful (similar to the issue that you can't comment on code review until you get an account made for you). Don't be afraid to use github for now -- one of the big advantages of git is precisely that you can move the whole repository with history with a single command. --brion (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How GitHub would be configured for Wikimedia use
The idea of separate deploy and development repos sounds painfully close to this problem. We need to start moving away from the broken model where all our most trusted and skilled developers have to spend their time reviewing code instead of building awesome software. One of the advantages of GitHub is that it was built with a healthy workflow in mind, where all developers are trusted in some basic way. Maybe in a more open developer community like ours that's not perfectly possible, but it makes me sad to think we're considering ways to make good tools broken instead of using good tools and good workflows. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: GitHub
I posted something to the mailing list about GitHub and hope to disassemble it into points for the Git/Gerrit evaluation page soon. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)