Compared to the code review facilities in GitHub, Gerrit is pretty crappy. Gets the job done, but the UI and the work flow it forces is a bit annoying.

The worst part in repo + gerrit is that their default work flow is based on cherry-picking and they introduce a new concept called Change-Id. The Change-Id basically yet another unique identifier for changes that is stored in the commit message. The intent is that you make a change (a single commit patch), a post-commit hook adds the Change-Id to the commit message and then you upload it for review. When you make additions to your change, the previous change gets overwritten. Gerrit tries to maintain some kind of branching (called dependencies), but they mess things up when there's more than one person working on a few changes at the same time.

In comparison with GitHub-style work flow where you make a branch with multiple commits, submit a pull request, get review, add commits, squash and merge, the repo + gerrit model is awfully constraining.

We might be using an old version of repo and/or gerrit and some of the issues I've encountered may be improved. However, I think that repo+gerrit is a mess beyond repair and trying to "fix" it only makes things worse.

Unless you work on Android and are forced to use repo+gerrit because Google does so, stay out of it.

I'm using it, the workflow isn't so bad. In fact it is similar to the way kernel patches are iterated and reviewed, except centralised instead of e-mail based.