Re: [discuss] So what does Gerrit actually get us, anyway?
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 14:34, Will Stevens <wstevens@...> wrote:
Apologies again for chiming in with a very biased view. The discussion currently seems to be blaming Gerrit for the lack of outside contributions. At the risk of sounding flippant, maybe the problem is lack of dedicated reviewers?
From my perspective, when I want to contribute to a new and unfamiliar project, I generally start with git blame on the piece of code I want to work with. That leads me to a git patch, and in OpenStack's case, leads me to a review. Looking through the discussions on the review leads me to who I should contact on email, or chat to, in order to ask for advice and guidance. In OpenStack's case, I received feedback in the same week.
Even with OpenStack, it's recognised that reviewer time is mostly the gating factor for any project. For example, the Nova project recently wrestled with the issue that they might have to compromise on the policy of +2's from two different employers or they run the risk of running into a hard limit.
I cannot claim to have the answers, but I can say it's pretty difficult for a random person to contribute to a project where the bugs on mainline commits reference a private JIRA, little public discussion goes on and development, planning and design isn't held in publicly recorded meetings.
By all means, Gerrit has a learning curve. It's also not a coincidence that two of the top three open source projects use Gerrit. I would strongly advocate against switching to the Linux Kernel development model, however.
Principal Software Engineer
Netronome | First Floor Suite 1, Block A, Southdowns Ridge Office Park,
Cnr Nellmapius and John Vorster St, Irene, Pretoria, 0157
Phone: +27 (12) 665-4427 | Skype: jangutter | www.netronome.com