On 09/19/2015 06:57 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote: >> The topology of 'project' is not a match to our repository >> topology, which is incidental and an implementation detail. >> It's not possible to cleanly turn GitHub on or off along >> the - ever-shifting - social boundaries involved. >> > > I don't follow. And reviewboard will still be the primary source.
Some of the pro-arguments have been "it's opt-in" and "you can ignore it if you want" in the context of "projects". But in reality the toggle is per-repository, and project != repository. Plasma is comprised of many repositories. I maintain subfolders in plasma-desktop.git but not the whole of it. I can't opt out of GitHub for, say, the Task Manager if it's enabled for plasma-desktop. There's no way to ignore GitHub and maintain common owner- ship, really - for that reason and for the reason that a gimped GitHub presence is arguable worse than no presence (because it snubs rather than ignores an audience) the decision is IMHO between 'allow GitHub code review in general or don't'. >> * Different per-project tooling definitely creates pressures >> on projects to provide the same tooling as other projects. >> We've got practical experiences with this from our trial >> runs with gerrit and Phabricator. >> > > And we can be sensible and see what pressures we're going to > accommodate with and which we arent'. Not really an issue. I'm saying that past experience has shown us that many devs are frustrated about having to use multiple code review sites and want back to one. This directly reads on the GitHub dis- cussion, what's sensible about ignoring that ...? > Your core workflow is NOT fragmented if github is an addition which is > not recommended. Of course it's fragmented if code review happens on GitHub for code I co-own by way of common ownership. There is no way around that. The common owners of our code have to deal with two code review sites starting from the first pull req. I'd like us to simply not pretend otherwise. Allowing GitHub affects everyone. Allowing GitHub in addition to our own infrastructure is fragmentation. Those are simply facts. The debate should be entirely about whether we want to live with that or not. Your "But we also use Google Hangouts" argument is much more relevant. In fact, as someone who doesn't use Google Hangouts and has repeatedly been pressured into using it or missed out on opportunities to participate in decisions because of it, I can tell you exactly what the downsides are to trying to ignore the fragmentation that it constitutes. > Just as if someone project is shipping Windows binaries, one cannot > step up and maintain that project. Big deal! There are always > differences. Can we retire the Windows argument though? Project input != project output. Cheers, Eike _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community