On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 08:47:09 Jeff Mitchell wrote: > I understood that to be the case -- I'm really meaning for a general, > KDE-wide solution. > > Personally I don't have an issue with volunteers taking care of > non-official systems if it helps their productivity. If Gerrit wasn't > where KDE as a whole went, and you wanted to put the effort in to keep > Gerrit working for you and integrated with the rest of the KDE systems, > more power to you. > > The issue I see (which doesn't necessarily reflect my personal views) is > that KDE projects have been required to use KDE infrastructure. I forget > where that's written/required, but I do know that that it exists. The > purpose of this was to avoid fragmentation or making it difficult to > find the full breadth of KDE projects, or requiring KDE developers to > sign up for multiple e.g. bugtracking systems just to comment on another > KDE project.
I think you're referring to manifesto.kde.org. There's nothing in there about Reviewboard, or a requirement that project have to use infrastructure hosted at kde.org, so I don't see that as a blocker. Of course it would be prudent to give KDE's sysadmin's access at some point, but it's not required per se. > I tend to be productivity-oriented rather than dogmatic, but I certainly > don't speak for everyone on that point. Cheers, -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
