I worked with Gerrit and GH both. My personal preference would be in favor of Gerrit because of its power user ready-ness and tight integration with git + git cli. Afaics there are legitimate concerns around possible trickiness of novice users' interaction with Gerrit. Not sure if this was mentioned above but there seems a Gerrit + GH plugin that mirrors GH pull-requests to Gerrit changes. Never used it but still this may be of help.
1: https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/github/+/master/README.md 2016-05-13 8:47 GMT-07:00 Jason Altekruse <ja...@dremio.com>: > If everyone else would prefer Gerrit, I would be okay with using it > exclusively to simplify things. It does have several nice features beyond > reviewboard as it manages its own git repository, rather than just patch > files. > > Jason Altekruse > Software Engineer at Dremio > Apache Drill Committer > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Apparently it is possible, but quite a lot of work: > > > > https://github.com/andygrunwald/gotrap > > > > The ideal thing, it would seem, would be to have the Gerrit code > > reviews with automatic replication of updated patch sets to a pull > > request (i.e. each new patch set force pushes the branch). I don't > > think we're going to get that, so I'm not sure how to proceed. The > > Kudu team uses Gerrit + Jenkins trigger (e.g. see it in action here > > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2992/) > > > > - Wes > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Does gerrit work well with TravisCI, or will we need to develop/setup > > > another continuous integration solution? > > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Robinson > > > <danrobinson...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Admittedly, coming from the complete opposite end of the commit-size > > spectrum, the JIRA issue + GitHub pull request workflow already feels a > > little frictional for simple bugfixes and additions, so I was wary of > > Gerrit. But it actually looks pretty well-suited to small commits. > > >> One advantage I'd see to different platforms, though, would be the > > potential for JIRA integration. GitHub seems to have a more built-in > > solution for this, if it's something you could foresee setting up. But > > there seem to be ways to do it with Gerrit too. > > >> Clearly having an option to use GitHub pull requests lowers the > > barriers to entry for contributors, but I understand easy pull requests > are > > a double-edged sword for maintainers! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _____________________________ > > >> From: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:46 AM > > >> Subject: Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches > > >> To: <dev@arrow.apache.org> > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm also on board with this if it doesn't deter new contributors (it's > > >> a bit of additional process over GitHub but overall not too hard to > > >> learn). > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>> I dont know about the other pmc members and committers but I prefer > > just > > >>> making Gerrit the only way to submit patches rather than one of many. > > It > > >>> seems to work well for Asterix and Kudu. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
