El Dilluns, 15 de desembre de 2014, a les 10:48:16, Milian Wolff va escriure: > On Saturday 13 December 2014 18:13:41 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > El Dissabte, 13 de desembre de 2014, a les 13:46:24, Jan Kundrát va > > escriure: > > > On Friday, 12 December 2014 22:44:39 CEST, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > >> That's very different from saying "whole KDE should just > > > >> switch to Gerrit", and I'm not proposing that. Some people have made > > > >> themselves clear that no change is going to happen, and I can live > > > >> with > > > >> that. > > > > > > > > Where was that discussed? Which people is that? > > > > > > (Removing PIM from the list, because I don't see this as a PIM matter.) > > > > > > That was the impression which I got from the #kde-devel IRC channel and > > > the > > > kde-core-devel ML right after that frameworks BoF during Akademy. When > > > re-reading the threads and the IRC logs today, I no longer have the > > > impression that there was a clear, absolute and strict "no", but there > > > was > > > nonetheless IMHO quite a strong resistance to using something "as > > > horrific > > > as Gerrit". That might explain why I think that there will be a subset > > > of > > > people who won't be fine with any change, and because I respect their > > > opinion, I don't want to force such a change upon them. > > > > As i said there is value in uniformity of the tooling, I like to think > > we're all reasonable people and understand that if the majority thinks > > it's a better tool, it makes sense to move to that tool. That's what > > happened with git. > > > > And if after evaluating it, it doesn't make sense, we don't. That's what > > happened with gitlab. > > > > Now to me it seems that you're basically saying "you" do what you want, > > i'll keep using "my" stuff. Which i find sad since it's creating > > artificial barriers between "you" and "my" :/ > > > > It also puts the discussion about a possible switch to gerrit in a weird > > situaion since we either all switch and have uniformity or we don't and > > then we end up with reviewborad+gerrit :/ > > Personally, I don't see why its a bad thing to have two options, if both > fulfill a different users needs. Reviewboard is apparently liked by some, > and its certainly simple to send trivial patches with it. Gerrit otoh is > much better for people who work a lot on projects, as you can get much more > productive with it. You just use git, and the rest is handled by the web > ui.
I've already written it in lots of places but i'll try to do it again: * Makes it harder for newcomers (and developers in general) since they have to find out which of the two patch review systems to use for repository * People need to llearn two tools instead of one to contribute patches to "KDE projects" * Increases our maintaince effort (there's two web systems that can break instead of one) And i could find more, but i sincerely think these three are "bad enough". Cheers, Albert > > > So, basically, from my point of view -- the tools are here, the CI is > > > done.i > > > That CI bits in particular make the workflow much more appealing to me. > > > Now > > > it's up to the KDE developers to come to a decision whether they want > > > that > > > or not. > > > > Maybe you could start a thread explaining why gerrit is better than > > reviewboard nd why should we switch to it? > > I can just say that I like using it in the setup they have for Qt. Much more > productive to work on patch sets and then pushing them to an alias remote. > Then I can fix them up and/or rebase and push again to update everything. > With reviewboard, I'd need to manually push each individual patch, and > updating them is again as much work. > > Bye
