On 18 Feb 2014, at 11:22, Martin Klapetek wrote:
Generally speaking, Gerrit needs to "own" repositories. Would this
require
some sort of thing like RB hosting the Git repos?
Sort of, it would need its own clone of the repos, which is moreless
the
case right now anyway right? But I imagine it brings all sorts of
synchronization issues with it...
That's what I would worry about.
My idea w.r.t. RB and Bugzilla -- and this is not discussed fully, so
please just treat this as "my opinion" and not "the sysadmins' opinion"
-- is that those have mostly the same pros and cons with respect to
integrated GitLab functionality:
Pros:
- Can easily move items between components
- Powerful and flexible
Cons:
- Much more confusing for users/casual developers (different site,
workflow, etc)
So my thinking is that things like KDE Frameworks, where moving bugs
between components is common, might benefit from staying on Bugzilla and
ReviewBoard; however, casual projects (especially more self-contained
ones like extragear) are more likely to benefit from (at their option)
migrating to the integrated issue tracking. That way users and casual
developers can sign up and have one place to submit patches, report
issues, and so on, which makes it easier to do and more likely to be
done. There are many reasons GitHub has gotten so huge, but integration
is surely a very major one.
Again, just my thinking. In the end, at least with Bugzilla, I think it
ought to be available for use but up to a group consensus for
developers. GitLab is the more GitHub-style issues where you're
encouraged to tag/search but it can make it hard to get very specific
queries like you can with Bugzilla, which can be very helpful for
triagers of big projects. So I can see a lot of projects wanting to stay
on Bugzilla, and a lot of small projects wanting things integrated, and
I think both should be supported.
For ReviewBoard, I'd say that there is more of a chance of the sysadmins
deciding to nix it depending on duplicate functionality -- at least as
it currently stands -- but RB 2.0 does seem like major improvements, and
could be worth keeping as well. I wouldn't worry about this happening
any time soon though, and certainly not before checking out RB 2.0. But
if RB were to stay, it'd be in addition to GitLab, because if GitLab has
built-in merge requests, there's little reason to turn them off.
BTW -- this is also my thinking for GitLab wiki capability. It's nowhere
near as capable as MediaWiki, but for some projects that just want a
small amount of pages (say, an FAQ page and a news page, or something)
it may be far nicer to have it integrated than to have those buried in
TechBase. Certainly it's appropriate for project-specific documentation
only, though -- UserBase/TechBase/etc are wonderful for what they are,
and for the higher-level and non-project-specific information that they
have.
--Jeff
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
