On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Mark Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: > Dropping our existing practice of using Bugzilla for patch reviews is one > way of addressing this. Folding the more useful features of Rietveld in to > Bugzilla to improve Bugzilla-based patch reviews is another. We all seem to > be in agreement that the tools involved with reviewing a patch have room for > improvement, but > I've not seen a compelling reason why the former is a better way forward. >
If people were really interested in changing, then it would take probably two orders of magnitude less effort to set up a Rietveld instance to associate with Bugzilla (to the degree it currently can associate with the Google Code bug tracker), as compared with improving Bugzilla. The former is basically adding a few URLs to some scripts, the latter is highly nontrivial coding. That seems compelling to me. > (Right now it's about 10x easier for me to get a Chromium patch reviewed > than a WebKit one just because a single shell command can create a Rietveld > issue with my patch and set the description up for me.) > > > This something of a non-sequiter, since it is trivial to create a script to > do the same with Bugzilla. I've heard mentions of a git-send-bugzilla > script that does most of this already, and I'm sure it could easily be > adapted for those preferring SVN. > True. Still, I _have_ that script for Chromium, and I don't for WebKit :). PK
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
