On 2/02/2017 12:41 AM, "Luigi Toscano" <luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 10:31:44 CET Francis Herne wrote: > Sorry, forgot to reply-all and only sent to kdevelop-devel... > > ------------- > > Hi, > > First off, there's a lot of postponed, or at least possibly-useful, > work on ReviewBoard which would be lost. Some of this is from newish > contributors who might be discouraged - e.g. the author of > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129589/ mentioned on IRC the other > day that he's hoping to complete it at some point. I think that we need some cleanup on the old reviews (Albert Astal Cid started some time ago) and more important strongly tell new users (and old users) to use Phabricator. I don't think that anyone wants to lose the work, but if a review has not been touched in a few months maybe it's time to see it is still interesting. If we start doing this now (or yesterday), the flow of new patches in reviewboard should decrease quickly. Getting everyone to shift over was the whole point of this thread. No new reviews should be opened on ReviewBoard, and existing ones shouldnt take more than a few weeks to clear. Anything older than that usually won't apply to the code anymore. > For already-committed work: > > Even if the mail-archiving infrastructure was in a useful state, this > would be inconvenient - there are more than a *thousand* REVIEW: tags in > kdev* project commits, plus several comments with "see <review url>". > > Many mailing lists aren't logged at all, there's no internal > search with only patchy Google indexing, and 'browsing' the archive > means clicking through arbitrarily-grouped mails by date with minimal > threading. That's not merely inconvenient, it's going to cause a > catastrophic loss of information. I agree as well that the review information should be kept online. -- Luigi Regards, Ben
