Go Proposal: Accept GitHub PRs

I&#x27;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&#x27;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:&#x2F;&#x2F;reviewable.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reviewable.io&#x2F;</a> on github.<p>We don&#x27;t enforce its use. If a newcomer makes a pull request, we&#x27;ll just use the GH review interface. In general simple PRs go through the GH review interface, regardless of who they&#x27;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&#x27;s! <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;elixir-lang&#x2F;elixir&#x2F;pulls" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;elixir-lang&#x2F;elixir&#x2F;pulls</a>

I can&#x27;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.