gerrit

Rietveld and gerrit have similar workflows except that gerrit is more integrated with git (I think).

Magit pushed my change directly to refs/heads instead of refs/for, completely bypassing gerrit code review.

If you want a straightforward answer, then yes Gerrit provides a number of extra features, but it isn't a replacement for GitHub.

OT: Does Gerrit provide any extra features helping in code review, compared to Github?

It's sounds like how Gerrit works, from a user's POV at least.

We use gerrit hosted on EC2 mirroring commits to github for backup.

To my understanding, Gerrit does grouped commits as part of the flow.

Private commits are pushed into gerrit run against the CI suite.

Both are named after Gerrit Rietveld, a famous Dutch designer.

What you've said is essentially correct, but I'd like to make a minor correction: Chromium uses rietveld whereas Android (and some Chromium related projects) use gerrit.

I am an unabashed fan of Gerrit - the fine-grained ACLs can be annoying to wrap your head around, but the code review interface is quite nice.

I've fallen in love with gerrit for code reviews.

The post-push scripts create a sort of branch-tag thingy from master with your commits on, and so when the Gerrit review passes ("pull request accepted") the change is merged/rebased/cherry-picked onto the latest stuff.

Gerrit lets me set up an automerge to the "main trunk" of the development if one person claims it works and two people eyeball the code.

The reason I said "every developer gets to" is that in larger projects (which also usually use gerrit, which do not) I've seen that there are usually a select few people in charge of merging the feature branches into master, instead of everyone getting to merge as they see fit.

You can push to a repo that you don't really have write permission to, and it goes into Gerrit.

Gerrit is a bit too heavy for small teams and Redmine does not have a good code review plugin.

Using Gerrit, which is an automated mimick of Linus' development model.