On Monday, 5 January 2015 16:05:07 CEST, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
- Existing KDE account holders can and do use git for their workflow.
- Using non-git workflow for others introduces a different
workflow to the mix.
- Having two workflows is more complex than having just a single one.
Does it make it more understandable?
No. What you're saying is "having two tools" is more complex.
It's still one workflow.
I feel like you're just language-lawyering here. The workflow I propose
pushes the burden of producing clean patches to the contributor. The
workflow you're advocating for appears to center around sending patches
around, so by definition in your workflow there's a big difference in the
way 3rd party contributors work as opposed to what KDE developers do. My
proposal aims at closing this gap.
GitHub is a notable example showing that people don't seem to
have an issue with a workflow that uses Git + a web-based tool
to manage their code reviews. I'm not saying we need to end up
with that, I just don't think it's credible to claim that it's
too difficult or complex.
That isn't an example that proves your point, though. The GitHub workflow
actually involves a `git push` to be done by the contributor. That means
that the GitHub workflow relies on contributors to curate git trees, and as
such I like that workflow [1] because both core developers and contributors
produce the same sort of artefacts. It's a different workflow from
uploading patches via browser or via some client-side tool, though, and I
believe you were saying that it's fine for a CR tool to work on patches and
not git trees.
[1] GitHub manages to screwup things when one does a rebase, but that's an
implementation detail for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, it does
make the workflow hardly usable for me.
Cheers,
Jan
--
Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
