When comparing Gerrit vs RhodeCode, the Slant community recommends Gerrit for most people. In the question“What are the best self-hosted web-based Git repository managers?” Gerrit is ranked 6th while RhodeCode is ranked 7th. The most important reason people chose Gerrit is:
Gerrit supports group and user authorizations for various repositories. Only authorized users can push code to the master branch.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Authorizations for users and groups
Gerrit supports group and user authorizations for various repositories. Only authorized users can push code to the master branch.
Pro Integration with LDAP, bug-tracking tools, CI, etc.
Full integration with LDAP (users, groups), bug-tracking systems (Jira, Bugzilla), CI (Jenkins, Hudson) and other tools.
Pro Configurable project workflow, not always feature branches are the most suitable workflow
Pro Project policy customization can be done with hooks and plugins
Multiple hooks available on various events. Plugin API for more customization of project behavior.
Pro Self-contained installation of Java package, simple upgrades
Most upgrades require only download of new war file and running it in init mode. In some rare cases db reindex is required.
Pro Web UI extension with plugins
A number of plugins available for web UI extension. Plugin API for more customization.
Pro High security
It's open source and it can be installed on your own machine, which gives high security and isolated environment for the codes. Whole application installation is super easy and independent from the Linux distribution.
Pro Supports 3 major version control systems
RhodeCode supports Mercurial, Git and Subversion in a unified way that allows you to do code-reviews and other stuff on each of them.
Pro Centralized user management
User management is centralized around administrators which can give granular permissions to individual users or user groups/. These permissions can be related to allowing contributions, editing, or simply giving read-only access to users.
Pro Powerful and flexible code review
Code reviews can be done via Pull Requests, or simply commit-by-commit. There are voting rules, random reviewers pools, and smart comment invalidation logic. Pull requests are also versioned so it's easy to review partial changes after the author has updated his code.
When you create a Pull-request you can add set of reviewers. They all have to vote and approve the PR. There's some flexibility on how the voting is accepted, it can be majority wins, or all-agree. Good practice is to add BOT accounts like jenkins, that also will vote on the review, based on for example tests run, and can forbid a merge because of a negative vote. In addition users can leave special type of comments that will also prevent merges, aka TODO notes. Once TODOs are resolved a Pull Request can be merged.
Pro Free and Open Source
RhodeCode CE (Community Edition ) is free and open source. Enterprise Edition (EE) adds premium support, corporate authentication. and tool integrations on top of the RhodeCode CE.
Pro Integrates fully with LDAP/AD and others
RhodeCode has auth plugins, now supported include: LDAP, LDAP with user groups, TOKEN, Container auth, PAM
Pro Online editing with preview
Files can be added, modified and deleted from the web interface, including adding directories, and uploading files.
Pro Best in class permission system
RhodeCode have the most advanced Permission system on the market, allowing things like permission inheritance, permission delegation. All comes in a format that doesn't get hard to manage at scale.
Pro Header authentication plugin allows auth delegation to 3rd party systems
The builtin header auth can delegate authentication to other existing systems for further validation chain.
Cons
Con The UI is very cluttered
Gerrit's user interface is very cluttered and messy, and quite ugly to look at. The navigations is also not very intuitive, which may hold some people off.
Con Difficult to customize
Fixing the UI/UX problems with CSS customization is nearly impossible. The markup doesn't include many classes, making it difficult to target CSS rules to specific elements of the interface.
Con Hard to maintain and upgrade
The documentation is not very clear and it's hard to troubleshoot if there is a failure.