Hi all. I prepared for the first QtSerialPort review. But then I do not know what to do: Who will review my changes? Who will do the audit? Someone, please check the code, because I still have not figured much in the features by: http://wiki.qt-project.org/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt
Best regards, Denis 09.02.2012, 23:46, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com: > On 09/02/2012 13:26, ext Denis Shienkov wrote: > >> Hi Marius. >> >> I have a few more questions (or offers): >> >> 1) Perhaps, instead of: >>> ... >>> and start pushing to refs/for/2.0 to the Gerrit repo. >>> ... >> done refs/for/master? Because for the main branch is gerrit master, >> and not 2.0 (or am I misunderstanding something?). > > Sure, whatever you prefer. Gitorious' 2.0 branch was pushed to both 2.0 > and master, since Gerrit requires a 'master' branch. We didn't import > the Gitorious master branch, since I think you only rebased the 2.0 > branch to avoid the commits without CLA signoff. > > How you proceed, with commits in the master or 2.0 branch is up to you > as the maintainer. > >> 2) It may be worth in the current repository QSerialDevice Gitorious >> marked as deprecated (well, or something like that), and instead it >> create a new one with a new name (ex. QtSerialPort), etc. The reason >> is that QSerialDevice will not reflect the inner essence, after >> integration, and will mislead the majority of public users. > > Sure, I agree it's probably cleaner to do that. (Our internal sync > script also infact requires the repositories to be named the same in > Gerrit and in Gitorious.) > >> 3) Let us define - what the class name give, with prefix Qt, Q or no >> prefix? I looked at some of the projects Gerrit without CI (eg >> qtprocessmanager, qtjsonstream) and found that a all class names >> without the prefix. I also stick to this style? > > See > http://wiki.qt-project.org/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Using_the_module_name_in_application_code_and_documentation > > "For Qt Add-On Modules, a C++ namespace is required to avoid class > naming clashes with other modules in the public API. For the "Qt > Foo" module the namespace would be QtFoo. Exception: in order to > keep source compatibility with Qt 4, no namespace is required for > former Qt 4 modules. When naming classes, the best practice is use > simple non-prefixed class names within the C++ name space. Naming > classes of add-ons like QMyClass is also OK." > >> 4) In the header of each source file, keep a reference to the >> original authors, like me, or mention only Nokia? > > Nokia did not develop the code, and must not be referenced as the > author. Copyright remains with the author. > >> 5) How to make an example of the structure of the project is the >> addon for QtSerialPort (in order to make the image and likeness), >> from any Addon-project? Or maybe there is a specific example of a >> good where to get the project structure for addon? > > http://wiki.qt-project.org/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#The_structure_of_a_new_module_repository > > -- > .marius > >> 08.02.2012, 22:08, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com: >>> On 2/8/12 11:59 AM, "ext Denis Shienkov"<scap...@yandex.ru> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marius. >>>> >>>> I do not understand this bit: >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -------------------------- >>>> For the other Qt repos we treat the Gitorious repo as "public" repo, so >>>> most people will clone from there. Then we regularly push from Gerrit to >>>> Gitorious to keep them in sync. However, we disable Merge Requests in >>>> Gitorious, since we want to force all contributions through the Gerrit >>>> system. >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -------------------------- >>>> >>>> ie I and other "special/selected" developers will commits/push to Gerrit, >>>> and then tested and approved by the pieces of code will be sent to >>>> Gitorious? >>> >>> Well, not more "special" than having a Jira/Gerrit account with an >>> accepted CLA agreement :) >>> >>> For the Qt Essential modules we have a script which automatically pushes >>> the latest changes to the Gitorious location. And we prefer most people to >>> use those as the primary clone location, since it offloads much of the >>> resource requirements from the Qt-Project infrastructure. >>> >>>> What then will be a public repo address on Gitorious for get/clone other >>>> people a code libraries? >>> >>> It's up to you really. If you don't want to mirror it to Gitorious on a >>> regular basis, you can just use the Gerrit repo as the primary location, >>> though I think people will need a Jira/Gerrit account to do so? Sergio, >>> can you please confirm or deny that? >>> >>> My recommendation: Keep your Gitorious repo as the "primary" source, and >>> push the 2.0 branch from Gerrit to Gitorious whenever you feel it's stable >>> enough. Then add a notice on the Gitorious project that all development is >>> done at codereview.qt-project.org, and that Merge Requests in Gitorious is >>> therefore disabled. >>> >>> For Qt Essentials, the init-repository script in qt5.git makes the >>> Gitorious repos the 'origin', while Gerrit is the 'gerrit' remotes. >>> >>> -- >>> .marius >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 08.02.2012, 21:37, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com: >>>>> You may now disable/stop using the Gitorious repo, and clone from >>>>> Gerrit, >>>>> and start pushing to refs/for/2.0 to the Gerrit repo. Then those will >>>>> show >>>>> up as review tasks for the 2.0 branch in Gerrit, and you can review it >>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> Basically, you may now use the Gerrit version as the main repository. >>>>> >>>>> For the other Qt repos we treat the Gitorious repo as "public" repo, so >>>>> most people will clone from there. Then we regularly push from Gerrit to >>>>> Gitorious to keep them in sync. However, we disable Merge Requests in >>>>> Gitorious, since we want to force all contributions through the Gerrit >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> .marius >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/12 11:34 AM, "ext Denis Shienkov"<scap...@yandex.ru> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marius. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, everything seems fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried to clone the repository: >>>>>> >>>>>> # git clone >>>>>> ssh://codereview.qt-project.org:29418/playground/qtserialport.git >>>>>> >>>>>> and received the 2.0 branch files. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What are is now further action on my part and yours? ie what's next? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Denis >>>>>> >>>>>> 08.02.2012, 18:37, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com: >>>>>>> Great, thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Denis, let us know if everything looks good on your side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sent from my Nokia N9On 2/8/12 8:02 Ahumada Sergio (Nokia-MP/Oslo) >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 02/08/2012 02:57 PM, Storm-Olsen Marius (Nokia-MP/Austin) wrote: >>>>>>>> Actually, the master branch has not been rebased to remove the >>>>>>>> commits >>>>>>>> which has no CLA, so we need to remove that branch. Perhaps just make >>>>>>>> the 2.0 branch t the master as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Done .. 2.0 from Gitorious is now master in Gerrit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sergio Ahumada >>>>>>> Mobile Phones Middleware - Quality Engineering >>>>>>> http://wikis.in.nokia.com/QtQualityEngineering >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development