Gerrit

“which IMO is a much better experience than the branch-review-squash model that GitHub normalized”

“Gerrit helped my team a lot, if for no other reason than enforcing a "one commit equals one change" model”

“As someone who much prefers Gerrit's UI/UX over GitHub's UI”

“Gerrit instances (which had better PR UI than GH implementation)”

“Code review workflow is the nub / hub of collaboration, and should never be blocked on anything else failing, including itself.”

“I've found stacked diffs (with Phabricator and Gerrit at least...) to massively simplify my workflow”

“JJ, Gerrit, codebutler, and I think a couple of others have all basically agreed upon a syntax for change IDs”

“Gerrit manages stacked changes with standard git tooling, except for the tiny change-id hook.”

“That is nowhere close to the experience Gerrit and Phabricator have”

“I thought it was great being able to shape my diffs into stacked chunks that reviewers could effortlessly navigate”

“Gerrit has a "Change-Id" it adds to the git commit which is independent of the git hash”

“a non-maintainer could review be allowed to give a +1 or -1, but not a -2 or +2”

“I think there is a strong argument that Gerrit is the current evolution of the patches workflow”

“The number one thing that gerrit does that is important is keep comments tied to the code between commits.”

“I agree Gerrit is the superior code review model. but without the other 3 pieces you don't have a product.”

“I personally think Gerrit works much better than whatever GitHub et al. have for code reviews.”

“I really like Gerrit's workflow with diff reviews as opposed to pull requests”

“it was a steep learning curve for the des but it's fine”

“phabricator/reviewable/gerritt all have significant onboarding hurdles”

“With Gerrit I can use all the built-in Git rebase/squash/fixup tools to manage the commit stack”

“I continue to use gerrit explicitly because I cannot stand github reviews”

“I liked to work with gerrit, where the unit of the review is the commit.”

“Gerrit looks ugly and is not very easy to use at first, but at least it's not slow like GitLab and GitHub.”

“The concept of "PR that depends on another PR" is a really useful one”

“the commit message and everything is part of the artifact under review exactly like the diff.”

“it's a big and sustained productivity win once everyone is past the learning curve”

“I miss Gerrit - it was the first code review tool I used at work.”

“specially since it seems to be going the Jujutsu route in the future”

“I much prefer the Phabricator/Gerrit ability to consider each commit independently”

“I use it myself to stream notifications from multiple sources (GitHub and Gerrit)”

“Instead of carefully crafting a logical series of patches that are all well documented with commit messages”

“how lovely the Gerrit experience is when compared to GitHub”

“it's so much extra effort for drive by contributions that I don't care”

“I'm more interested in gerrit/git-codereview for stacked commits than jj”

“they don't support proper tracking of review commits like e.g. Gerritt does”

“dedicate a few additional hours of his life to create an account and figure out how to use some obscure”

“It's hyper-focused on code review and CI integration, which it does really well.”

“I personally find the rebase and stacking commit focused method of integration that Gerrit uses to be easier and cleaner”

“I’m a little put off on the google connection but it seems like it could run rather independently.”

“Gerrit is structured as a Java app with no external dependencies like databases, and stores all it's configuration and runtime information on the filesystem”