From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Using Gerrit to review Git patches (was: Re: Transaction patch series overview) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: <53FE5359.4030403@alum.mit.edu> References: <20140820231723.GF20185@google.com> <20140826000354.GW20185@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Jonathan Nieder , Ronnie Sahlberg X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 27 23:53:41 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XMl9t-0006nt-JK for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:53:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965050AbaH0Vxd (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:53:33 -0400 Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu ([18.7.68.19]:61139 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932246AbaH0Vxc (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:53:32 -0400 X-AuditID: 12074413-f79ed6d000002501-19-53fe535cb5b7 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 92.2C.09473.C535EF35; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.69.130] (p5DDB04AB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.219.4.171]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s7RLrUQR018412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:53:31 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 In-Reply-To: <20140826000354.GW20185@google.com> X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupnleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRYndR1I0J/hds0HCR3aLrSjeTxdubSxgt /k2ocWD22DnrLrvHgk2lHp83yQUwR3HbJCWWlAVnpufp2yVwZ5zuv8VW0CdRMb3lIWsD43Lh LkZODgkBE4mV94+yQthiEhfurWcDsYUELjNKzNur3sXIBWSfY5Lo2PKKsYuRg4NXQFvi23Fd kBoWAVWJUzffs4PYbAK6Eot6mplAbFGBIInZn+eBxXkFBCVOznzCAmKLCERIbDi0kBnEZhbQ l/j05wBYvbBAlMTPS8eZIHY9Z5Lo27EE7CBOAQOJ479Ws0A06Ei863sA1Swvsf3tHOYJjAKz kOyYhaRsFpKyBYzMqxjlEnNKc3VzEzNzilOTdYuTE/PyUot0zfVyM0v0UlNKNzFCAld4B+Ou k3KHGAU4GJV4eD8s+BMsxJpYVlyZe4hRkoNJSZTXO+hfsBBfUn5KZUZicUZ8UWlOavEhRgkO ZiUR3g8eQDnelMTKqtSifJiUNAeLkjiv2hJ1PyGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpisDAeHkgRvFshQwaLU 9NSKtMycEoQ0EwcnyHAuKZHi1LyU1KLE0pKMeFCkxhcDYxUkxQO0Nwmknbe4IDEXKArReopR UUqcd0YgUEIAJJFRmgc3FpaOXjGKA30pzFsF0s4DTGVw3a+ABjMBDf7V8RdkcEkiQkqqgTFG e+XiU4XTmI+Lxfd2HlIUsu7mubxg+p4W08SJkzdE/pdyWb3q9xXu0kNK812/mNyq/ZXCnxP6 XHbmeh3V7AW5i510zuzpkun8dYl5SeXJ/2Yv1uTtEP/B17xyate093IuD6QSDIWX Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 08/26/2014 02:03 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jonathan Nieder wrote: > [...] >> I've having trouble keeping track of how patches change, which patches >> have been reviewed and which haven't, unaddressed comments, and so on, >> so as an experiment I've pushed this part of the series to the Gerrit >> server at >> >> https://code-review.googlesource.com/#/q/topic:ref-transaction-1 > > Outcome of the experiment: patches gained some minor changes and then > [...] > > I found the web UI helpful in seeing how each patch evolved since I > last looked at it. Interdiff relative to the version in pu is below. > I'm still hoping for a tweak in response to a minor comment and then I > can put up a copy of the updated series to pull. Thanks for organizing this "experiment". I was one of the guinea pigs :-) I have wanted to review more of Ronnie's patches (actually, all of them!) but have been overwhelmed by the number of iterations and the number of patch series flying around in parallel. I was also interested to try out Gerrit, which I haven't used before. So I took up Jonathan's invitation and reviewed the first patch series in Gerrit. Here are some of my first impressions. * Overall, I found it easier to review commits in Gerrit than on the mailing list, especially a long patch series like this one that has seen so much flux. It was easier to see the comments from all reviewers that apply to a patch, which is difficult on the mailing list when comments are scattered over the many iterations of the patch series. It was easier to incrementally increase the context around a patch. It was easy to use the copy-paste commands provided in the "download" menu to fetch the commit that I was reviewing into my local Git repository, and from there to build it or investigate it using other tools. * The Gerrit interface is very busy. It was somewhat overwhelming to me as a beginner. On the other hand, the help menus ("?" key) are good and the keyboard shortcuts are convenient. I didn't have to read much documentation to get started doing review in Gerrit, at least at a basic level. * During two of my big Gerrit sessions the website was very responsive and pleasant to use. During the third, it was terribly slow, like 5 - 15 seconds per page update. If I had only experienced the slow behavior, I would have rejected Gerrit immediately. I hope that the slow behavior was a rare anomaly. * Gerrit sends out an endless flood of emails that mostly seem pretty useless to me. I wish it weren't so chatty and that its emails were better organized. * At one point a back-and-forth in a line comment grew into a more general issue that was more appropriate for the mailing list. The transition from Gerrit to mailing list was a bit awkward. So, overall I found it pleasant and efficient to review patches in Gerrit. I would welcome more such "experiments". It would have been even better if Gerrit would generate more useful notification emails. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu