In all honesty formatting is something that should be dealt with
automatically. I use clang-format as part of my IDE just so I don't have to
think about formatting in addition to the actual functionality of the code
I'm writing. Auto formatting as you type helps a lot in keeping code
consistently
+1
Só far, simple solution and would reduce a lot work of reviewers.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 04:27 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Samstag, 2. April 2022 11:21:11 CEST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Nate Graham wrote:
> > > This caused a problem recently in KWin. A new contributor was given
> > > commit
On Samstag, 2. April 2022 11:21:11 CEST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nate Graham wrote:
> > This caused a problem recently in KWin. A new contributor was given
> > commit rights very soon after he appeared, and then immediately after
> > that, he inappropriately merged a not-fully-reviewed an un-accepted
On Freitag, 1. April 2022 17:36:50 CEST Nicolas Fella wrote:
> To summarize: I don't see a need to change how applications are
> reviewed, but perhaps there are steps we can integrate into the
> application process to communicate better the social etiquette that
> comes with commit access.
I
> I would like to add that GitLab has made it *significantly* easier to
> contribute without commit access. Think about what it was like in
> Phabricator era (or even Reviewboard). [...]
As a contributor who used Invent with and without commit access, I agree with
this statement. Commit access
El vie, 1 abr 2022 a la(s) 12:29, Nate Graham (n...@kde.org) escribió:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> When someone is proposed to get commit access, currently a sponsor
> proposes it, the intended recipient contacts sysadmin, sysadmin reviews,
> and then asks the sponsor if it's okay. This process
On Freitag, 1. April 2022 17:52:50 CEST Ivan Čukić wrote:
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 17:36:50 CEST Nicolas Fella wrote:
> > To summarize: I don't see a need to change how applications are
>
> +1
-+1
> One of the things I saw as a mark of a welcoming and trusting community
> when I joined KDE was
On 4/1/22 09:52, Ivan Čukić wrote:
On Friday, 1 April 2022 17:36:50 CEST Nicolas Fella wrote:
To summarize: I don't see a need to change how applications are
+1
One of the things I saw as a mark of a welcoming and trusting community
when I joined KDE was that everyone had direct push access
On Friday, 1 April 2022 17:36:50 CEST Nicolas Fella wrote:
> To summarize: I don't see a need to change how applications are
+1
One of the things I saw as a mark of a welcoming and trusting community
when I joined KDE was that everyone had direct push access to trunk
(good old SVN).
While this
On 4/1/22 09:36, Nicolas Fella wrote:
I think this case shows more a lack of communication towards the person
in question what rights and responsibilities come with commit access
rather than a problem with the current review process. In other words,
other reviewers would likely not have
On 4/1/22 17:28, Nate Graham wrote:
Hello folks,
When someone is proposed to get commit access, currently a sponsor
proposes it, the intended recipient contacts sysadmin, sysadmin
reviews, and then asks the sponsor if it's okay. This process
essentially only allows for sysadmin review, since
Hello folks,
When someone is proposed to get commit access, currently a sponsor
proposes it, the intended recipient contacts sysadmin, sysadmin reviews,
and then asks the sponsor if it's okay. This process essentially only
allows for sysadmin review, since the sponsor has already implicitly
12 matches
Mail list logo
