On Montag, 5. Januar 2015 18:01:12 CEST, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
"Sending patches around"? That's quite the stretch from
"submitting a diff to a web interface" and recalls the KDE 1.0
days. And you're accusing me of language-lawyering?
The problem here is that you believe -- incorrectly -- that a
single workflow cannot include more than one tool.
I believe this discussions heat turned into talking in absolutes.
Your truth - my truth.
It's not a matter of what is possible, but of preferences (while we probably
all prefer to not return to send patches on mailing lists ;-)
Since they may obviously cover a large range, "scale" seems a major requirement
on workflow and tools. Pure CLI access on alinged syntax for efficient pros is as
relevant as an easy GUI access for starters.
Correct. Although I recognize the merits of such an approach, I
do not believe that the only acceptable way for a code review
tool to work is on git trees instead of via patches.
I'd assume operating on git trees is certainly far more important for CI than
for reviewing patches.
And I do not believe that this one feature is enough to outright dismiss
all other options.
See? Absolutes ;-)
No feature trumps all others, but it's a matter of ranking and thus all must be
taken into fair and objective consideration.
distinction you made between contributors and developers, it
also requires those that want to contribute patches to have full
KDE developer accounts with commit/push access in order to push
those diffs up for code review
I don't think this is actually a requirement - the review repo (maybe even
branches) could easily have other/lower credential requirements than the
vanilla one.
Cheers,
Thomas
