On 2009-06-06, at 15:02, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Mark Rowe <[email protected]> wrote:Per Ojan's original email it is not as simple as adding a few URLs to some scripts, code changes would be needed to make it suitable for our purposes. Let's try and avoid hyperbole: it makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion.I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. It is my sincere opinion that in fact the changes are as simple as I mentioned.Of the issues that Ojan mentioned in his original email, I see three that would need to be addressed before we could consider adopting Rietveld:- Currently tied to AppEngine.I don't understand why this is problematic in the least, any more than saying "Bugzilla is currently tied to being run by Bugzilla". Why does it matter what the backing implementation of Rietveld is?
Primarily due to the two points that you trimmed from my email:
Two other major issues jump out at me: - Authentication. This is related to the AppEngine tie-in.- Authorization. Patch reviews need to reflect the access controls on the bugs that they are associated with.
There are also concerns about access to the data store of the application, backup procedures, etc. Our existing servers are well understood in this regard. We've also found in the past that having services spread across different systems causes confusion when something goes wrong, for whatever reason, as it's not clear who to contact to address the problem.
- Doesn't work with diff's generated by git.I didn't realize git was formally supported by WebKit. I assume git can generate diff/patch/svn-compatible diffs with some options (I am not a git user).
It's not our official version control system, but many WebKit contributors use git with WebKit via git-svn. Most of our scripts have been updated to work with both Subversion and Git, and something as central as patch review would definitely need to continue to support users of git.
- It's hard to spell. Retyping it to fix the spelling makes me sad.Other than this email series, I've never actually had to spell Rietveld. Certainly not while submitting, editing, reviewing, or landing patches :). I think this is irrelevant.
Great to see that we all have a sense of humor.
In summary, I did not realize that the WebKit community was even interested in changing their review system before seeing these emails, but if they are, I sincerely believe that Rietveld is far better than Bugzilla for patch review and strong consideration should be given to simply dropping it in, which I believe would be very easy to do.
I don't disagree that modifying an existing system to fit our needs may be easier than improving Bugzilla, but you're still overstating the ease with which Rietveld can be dropped in.
If we're all convinced that moving patch review to a separate system is a good idea, then we should also look further in to Review Board too.
- Mark
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
