[Distutils] Implementing large changes in small increments (was: Getting more momentum for pip)

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2015-03-06 21:37:31 +1000 (+1000), Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> I've never used Gerrit in the OpenStack context though, so I don't
> know if Donald dislikes Gerrit in its own right, or just the way
> OpenStack uses it.
[...]

Having talked with him about it regularly, I gather that he (and
others) dislike the Gerrit/LKML "rebase, revise and refine your
patch" workflow, instead preferring a Github-like "incrementally
build on your pull request with new commits" workflow... though
presumably he can explain it in better detail.

In my experience it comes down to a trade-off where the Github model
is easier on patch submitters because they can just keep piling
fixes for their pull request on top if it until the corresponding
topic branch is suitable to merge, while the Gerrit model is easier
on reviewers because they're reviewing a patch in context rather
than a topic branch.

> The Beaker workflow  is an example of vanilla Gerrit usage, rather
> than using OpenStack's custom fork:
[...]

OpenStack hasn't been running a fork of Gerrit since upgrading to
2.8 back in April 2014 (modulo a few simple backports from 2.9), and
has plans to upgrade to 2.9 next month or the month after. That's
not to say that there isn't a bunch of additional tooling and
automation built up around it (the Zuul CI system in particular) but
aside from some minimal theming and including a little Javascript to
tie outside data sources into the interface it's just plain Gerrit.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley