Some folks on this list have actually gone through the rigor of the gerrit workflow on the OS lists [1] and can probably note the positive and negative experiences. One thing I've seen is that almost all reviews in OS come in with tests and without passing the devstack tests (also integrated in gerrit) the patch isn't even picked up by committers for code review.
Personally I'm okay with either tool. IMO the real issue is in people reviewing a patch within time for a release. On the review I've cited we've got a lot of things to learn from - a) timely response from blueprint (FS) owners and/or asking for time for a thorough review b) sign-off from multiple committers c) incremental patch sets Probably many more in just that example. So if we think we can match up that kind of response time for patches hitting a our gerrit setup then +1 for gerrit. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/3343/ -- Prasanna., On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:06:00PM -0500, Leif Gruenwoldt wrote: > I recommend anyone for or against code review read this post by a > Mozilla dev written on 18 Jan 2013. > > "One of the discussions happening right now in the Mozilla Foundation > software team is whether mandatory code reviews are a good thing. > I?ve had versions of this conversation a number of times in the past > few months, and today I?m going to write my thoughts down so I can > point at them when it comes up in the future." > > http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569
