Re: cvs better than git?

[Sad Clouds <cryintothebluesky%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 10:32:32 -0400
gary%duzan.org@localhost wrote:

> > On 2020-06-21 16:07, Rhialto wrote:
> >> On Sun 21 Jun 2020 at 15:20:39 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>> I am still curious about how to manage well in git the scenario
> >>> where you do
> >>> have a central repository that holds the actual source of truth,
> >>> and where
> >>> you want to review and approve anything that gets committed.
> >>
> >> Let me point you to the hell that is called "Gerrit"...
> >> Example: https://review.opendev.org/
> >
> > Like I said. We are using gerrit. It's not without a bunch of
> > issues all on its own... :-)
> >
> > Any other options around with similar functionality?
> >
> >    Johnny
> 
>    Our group at work uses Gerrit. We have had some trouble
> maintaining it, so we have been considering moving to Bitbucket,
> which already exists in the company. Bitbucket seems nice enough,
> though of course it is commercial. If I were looking for a solution
> today I would consider Phabricator/Differential, as it is open
> source, supports Mercurial, and appears decent enough.
> 
>                               Gary Duzan

What is the actual benefit of these tools? In a commercial environment
I find them to be a complete distraction and it often results in people
blocking you from committing changes due to various petty reasons.

Ideally, you wouldn't need to manage anything, you trust your team
members to use their own experience and commit correct and well tested
code. You can still review the changes on their private branch, but you
can easily do that on the command line - "svn diff --diff-cmd=meld ..."
was the best review tool for me.