<div dir="ltr">Which review-tool do you suggest Michael? Any other alternatives that are better? Don't tell me email :-)<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Michael Adam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:obnox@samba.org" target="_blank">obnox@samba.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2016-10-14 at 11:44 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:<br>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:<br>
> > I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs us to<br>
> > fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on the<br>
> > data from the commit message is folly.<br>
><br>
> Eventhough we all seem to agree that statistics based on commit messages<br>
> is not correct,<br>
<br>
</span>I think it is the best we can currently offer.<br>
Let's be honest: Gerrit sucks. Big time!<br>
If gerrit is no more, the git logs will survive.<br>
Git is the common denominator that will last,<br>
with all the tags that the commit messages carry.<br>
So for now, I'd say the more tags we can fit into<br>
git commit mesages the better... :-)<br>
<span class=""><br>
> it looks like it is an incentive to get reviewing valued<br>
> more. We need to promote the reviewing work somehow, and this is one way<br>
> to do it.<br>
><br>
> Forking Gerrit is surely not the right thing.<br>
<br>
</span>Right. Avoid it if possible. Did I mention gerrit sucks? ;-)<br>
<br>
Cheers - Michael<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</div>