> Many years ago, I did a brief stint at Google. A lot has changed since then, but even that brief exposure to Google's internal developer tools left a lasting impression on me.

Perhaps the operative phrase being "Many years ago". I currently work at Google, previously I worked at Square. Of the two, I generally prefer the OSS and off-the-shelf tooling at Square. Some things really are better at Google (code search and Blaze are definitely a big improvement over what we had), but many of our monitoring and CI tools feel antiquated and cluttered with inscrutable debris. Or take Gerrit, where each change has 3 different IDs and the developers decided that every workflow status should be expressed as an integer in the range [-2, 2] for some reason [1].

They were probably amazing (and much simpler) tools back in the day, but the world has moved and we're somewhat constrained by what's familiar.

[1]: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/images/...

raverbashing

Yes please, Github PRs are much, much better than Gerrit or Ritveld (urgh), and the +1/+2 quirks of it

No, I'll take Github PRs any day. They could be better, of course.

madhadron

Stacked reviews are the crucial thing missing from GitHub pull requests. Truly, once you get used to working wit hthose, going back is intolerable, to the point where I now have a hacked together workflow where I live in git rebase -i and have it automatically push specially named branches for each commit in a stack.

ericyu3

So a few months ago I actually found a tool for this! The tool makes it easy to manage stacked reviews on GitHub. It's working super well for me. I also showed it to a bunch of people I work with, and a lot of them have taken it up.

Link: https://github.com/ezyang/ghstack

If you're interested, I'm happy to talk you through it - just book some time here: https://calendly.com/ericyu3/15min