I'd be curious to hear more about why the Go team thinks Gerrit is superior to Github for code reviews.<p>As far as I can tell, Github's latest additions to their code review flow pretty much brings Github on par with Gerrit (and with also a much larger mind share. Gerrit has always remained quite obscure and marginal).
With Servo we use <a href="https://reviewable.io/" rel="nofollow">https://reviewable.io/</a> on github.<p>We don't enforce its use. If a newcomer makes a pull request, we'll just use the GH review interface. In general simple PRs go through the GH review interface, regardless of who they're from. We break out Reviewable when a PR actually <i>needs</i> it (this is usually the choice of the reviewer).<p>This means that Servo continues to have a lower bar to contribution, without hampering maintainers on PRs that need more than GHs set of review features.<p>This has worked out well for us.
Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, I wonder why they want to use Gerrit. Meanwhile Elixir you open a PR and Jose and the gang address it quickly.<p>4 open PR's! <a href="https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/pulls" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/pulls</a>
I can't help thinking that requiring a specific code review tool is a bit ridiculous, especially considering the hoops they want to jump through to enforce it.
I contribute pull requests to quite a few github projects. However I avoid contributing to (or even using) projects with a Contributor License Agreement. Such projects are too bureaucratic.