From: rra@debian.org 
  
 Jeremy Stanley  writes: 
  
 > The more fundamental difference with Gerrit's approach, for me, is that 
 > you're proposing and revising a patch or series of patches and adjusting 
 > it until it appears the way you and reviewers want it to appear in the 
 > target branch's history. Gerrit supplies tooling necessary for comparing 
 > between arbitrary revisions of a patch, so there's no need to heap on 
 > fixes in subsequent commits, you just revise the commit (or series of 
 > related commits) repeatedly until it's in good enough shape to be 
 > merged. 
  
 Right, this is what I was talking about with incremental reviews. GitHub 
 now supports showing you only the differences since the last time you 
 reviewed it. 
  
 I agree that it's not quite as good as Gerrit at showing you deltas 
 between arbitrary revisions of the patch, but (for me at least) it's an 
 80% solution that gets most of the way there in most situations. 
  
 I'd love for this to get better, though, for sure. 
  
 > For me, doing code review long before GitHub existed, it has always 
 > seemed like a social media platform with code hosting bolted on, 
 > struggling to catch up with the features of review-oriented platforms. 
  
 Yeah, I just ignore all the social media features. 
  
 -- 
 Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)