I checked Gerrit before and like its philosophy of enforcing atomic commits and linear history, but I do not like its way of adding special change id in commit message and push to refs/for/master. That makes new users confusing and makes it difficult to follow. So I build a gerrit gatekeeper in GitPlex to enforce same rule in pull request, that is: when you need to update a pull request, you must amend your previous commit followed by a force push. No special change-id or the magic refs/for/master will be necessary.

It's simply horrible to work with. It's a mystery to me how people actually review code through that cumbersome interface. Tracking a larger patch series is just painful, and I usually had to use other tools for doing the actual work. To me, Gerrit is not a tool for doing reviews, but more like a bureaucratic behemoth from project management where you have to click the right buttons and fill out the necessary forms, so that things somehow get merged. It's more like applying for a mortgage or doing taxes.

Gerrit's current web UI is awkward, but the backend service really has the fundamentals down, and it has a first-class REST API. I used that to create Gertty which is a console UI for Gerrit that makes reading and reviewing code (in a terminal!) easy and fast.