[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:22:40 +0000
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=oSQWsZKpEJL10qRZFAEoO0lDiUSctupxFabErjR9jYs=; b=J1jFTBALPZgIL85+kDwsHxR+4UeRGPsRFrXkYQfDFliaPnCxMWPtufnP+4qBj29ZF/ GBPDCGAQ0bMJ8mj/Kil6ewbx4zomiIzHSWX28+O+mdGwudI6Ml6Z01yKguDPu9CXKHMz 492hX8UOthesVFKzlvyZPEEWo/W4Kgd31iZBg=
Discussions on Gerrit are arguably more useful with code since it often involves specifics. You can also annotate lines individually rather than just "please modify the method in this class" comments in bugzilla.
For non-code decisions (big designs, debates about approaches) then bugzilla may be more appropriate.
You can also have Gerrit send mail of changes (like bugzilla) and pick up new elements via Mylyn reviews (like bugzilla).
I see bugzilla less useful that Gerrit for almost every purpose, and if you give the Mylyn integration a go so may you.
Finally having details outside the git repo actually goes against the benefits of a DVCS in that you can be disconnected. ECF is a great example of how not to do this; every commit is just a pointer to a bug. That makes no sense when disconnected.
However it's conventional to have a Key: Value at the bottom of the commit message, such as
That way people have a link if needed, but the message should still be standalone in intent and detail.
Sent from my iPhone 4S
On 17 Feb 2012, at 07:48, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At the same time Gerrit is a very good code review tool, something
> Bugzilla is not. I don't mind seeing design discussions on bugzilla,
> and if we make sure we put the link to the changeset in the bug and
> visa versa, navigation between the tools should be easy.
> I just want to take advantage of the great git integration that gerrit
> provides. Never again should we have to ask someone to update and
> resubmit a patch. You simply rebase it from the current branch head.
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I totally agree with M-A on this. The discussions on Bugzilla are extremely valuable.
>> I'm suddenly worried about using Gerrit, now that M-A brings up this point.
>> Best regards,
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Marc-Andre Laperle <malaperle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 16-02-2012 21:45
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Gerrit
>> Hi Doug,
>> Gerrit looks great! My only concern is that it could move too much of
>> the discussions from Bugzilla to Gerrit. Often when I look at EGit bugs,
>> I don't see a lot of activity and updates and then I find out everything
>> is happening on Gerrit. If we adopt it, I think we should make sure
>> Bugzilla is not too left out.
>> On 13/02/2012 2:32 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
>>> Hey gang,
>>> Gerrit is ready for us to use! Woo hoo!
>>> I haven't taken a look at how to set it up and what it means to our
>>> processes. But it's something that should make our lives easier when
>>> accepting contributions. Let me know what you think and whether and we
>>> we should adopt it.
>>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev mailing list