github vs gerrit for branch-based collab

why github

Reasons allowing the usage of Github as a collaboration tool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
 
 * Termie is working on a feature that Steve and his company have an
   interest in seeing completed.
 
 * While the feature is not done, enough is done that an experienced
   developer (Steve) can begin contributing.
 
 * The code is still undergoing large changes on a daily basis.
 
 * Git, the version control system we use, has tools that map well
   to collaborating on rapidly changing code.

Why Github?
 
 * Github maps more closely to Git than does Gerrit for this style
   of development (branch-based rather than patch-based).

 * When rapidly collaborating, many changes, often partially complete,
   accumulate rapidly in a branch.
 
 * When dealing with an incomplete feature it is important to see history,
   progress and direction of work, so you often commit partially complete code.
 
 * Later, many of those individual commits get cleaned up to form individually
   valuable patches which are then ready for review.

Why not Gerrit?

 * Gerrit is patch-based, which is to say each of those small commits gets
   separated and at this stage each commit is not individually valuable.

 * At this stage, the number and even order of commits can be changing,
   making it difficult to follow the status of any individual commit.

 * Most commits during this process don't have much of a commit message,
   they rely on the collaborators knowledge and communication.

 * In the end, none of the commits that were submitted as WIP will actually ever
   be submitted for review, a different patch altogether will be generated.

I've also asked Steve to keep track of issues he runs into while trying to use
Gerrit for this style of collaboration to get you more cannon powder.