From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: Reviews on mailing-list Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:40:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Deniz_T=C3=BCrkoglu?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Shawn Pearce To: Thiago Farina X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 11 14:41:09 2012 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 1TXXmc-0007IX-Ds for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:41:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751660Ab2KKNku (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:40:50 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:57280 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751369Ab2KKNkt (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:40:49 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h16so5463436oag.19 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:40:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AAKjqXj7eIe4bkvAeNq+sYzH3g6mSxRo3Qh89CPuTnk=; b=MeClCURUDLVbaLqvgDOPiV2hQfJFepA+boELOI2x0YjgIXG6w2JbvtZOnVJSQeS53Q lPHDOL5EQmNkuMZcRE60Lr/rBvXM7kBU0k9dQr5jY3xhazKj02JqCIsb7whIgx4WRtzx Fc141SrRPfn6nZG26+0DiUeajCvFVyyQHxfAT/9VqNtWI7IdHWWRJAd+6Vqfs1VKKGWG 71qK+jzsZEu3MssVjI/ok+ATmnIXvQ77EiJS+LgBIlhgWnLe/adt3PtJ28kw5YMl4xmx ndsFhNNjegrW7CZLVnCfVpjfdj4AwUqSjPUtjrAUsBSArQQyaZ8HP7ZEOWjxJECpkyQJ y1wQ== Received: by 10.60.32.19 with SMTP id e19mr12601273oei.9.1352641248734; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:40:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.4.74 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:40:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Thiago Farina wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> Requiring everyone to use a web browser would limit the amount of ways >> people can review patches. > I don't see that as a limitation as I think everyone has access to a > web browser these days, don't have? > >>> How come that can >>> be an impediment to move forward way of this awkward way of reviewing >>> patches through email? >> >> It's not awkward, it's the most sensible way. >> > The most harder way I think? > > Look at this: > https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/#/q/status:open+project:chromiumos/platform/power_manager,n,z > > There I can go and see many informations that through this mailing > list I can't or have to do much more work in order to archive this. That information has nothing to do with reviews. That's patch state-tracking. > If you open one of the 'patches' you can see some relevant information: > - Who is the owner/author > - Was it verified? > - Is it ready for landing? Irrelevant for git. > - If I click on Side-by-side I get a nice diff view interface that > plan text email does NOT give me. Not useful. > - Was it reviewed/approved (+1, +2)? You can see the same in a mail thread. > - It can be merged by one click. Irrelevant for git. > - The interface also provide the command line to download/apply the > patch for me. Not useful. > - Isn't there a reason (implicit there) for Google being using tools > like Gerrit/CodeReview(rietveld)/Mondrian for handling his code > reviews rather than solely by 'email'? Who knows And if there is, who knows if it's valid. And none of those points has anything to do with code *review*. All these points are about state-tracking, and that can be implemented *on top* of the mailing list, for example through patchwork: http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/1531/ That's if somebody actually cared about that, but that doesn't seem to be the case. >> You just replied to my mail the same way I would reply to a patch. >> > I replied through a web browser by the Gmail interface. ;) Indeed, Gmail is one of the many ways you can review a patch. You clik reply, you add the comments in line, and click send. Couldn't be easier. >>> There are a lot of issues of having to use email for reviewing patches >>> that I think Gerrit is a superior alternative. >> >> There are no issues. It works for Linux, qemu, libav, ffmpeg, git, and >> many other projects. >> >>> And many people are arguing for it! >> >> Nope, they are not. >> > If they weren't then nobody would be suggesting to use Gerrit for > handling the review of git patches. Except you, of course. > But I think the big resistance comes from the fact that the core > developers handle/review the git patches through Gnus/Emacs, so that > is enough for them and they don't want to make the switch because of > that? gnus/emacs/notmuch/thunderbird/Gmail, and pretty much every mail client out there. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras