Hot take: in-house development has been influenced too much by the GitHub open source PR driven development process. A process driven by zero trust doesn’t fit well in a team with trust.
88
596
1,709
Conversation
Replying to
GitHub adds too much friction. Gerrit workflow is really a lot nicer. Also, need automation set up for a bigger project.
It works well to require a set number of reviews (usually 1, sometimes 2) and have powerful CI infrastructure quickly getting it tested + merged.
3
1
14
Replying to
I think it depends on the kind of project.
If something goes into production quickly based on what gets merged, that's different than having a release cycle where there's time to stabilize things before an actual release.
1
4
At least once you have more than a couple people it's really inconvenient / horrible for the main development branch to be broken. I can see it not working well if there isn't a culture of quickly reviewing things for people and a very well made bot that quickly tests + merges.
1
Replying to
I’ve worked on branches with hundreds of in house devs, it is possible to run a high trust fast revert model with a lot of people
1
2
Replying to
A high trust model could mean people can sign off on their own change and the bot tests + merges it the same as always though. Take a look at how Rust merges changes if you haven't.
Replying to
Open source is low trust and therefore needs a lot of gatekeeping that you don’t need for the person sitting next to you.
1
6
19
Replying to
I'd happily push a change to refs/for/master instead of to master and have CI quickly build + test and merge it for me even for projects where I'm the only person working on it. I don't do it because the tooling on GitHub is horrible.
1
2
Show replies
It's a lot harder when your builds takes hours and hours though, like the main Rust repository. If the builds are really quick then it's entirely painless and you don't need to deal with that rollup concept of the bot testing + merging groups of PRs together.
1