On 09/19/2015 09:55 PM, Kevin Krammer wrote: > Exactly. > So why would one continue to do the prelimiary review in addition to the > required one? > As soon as there is a stream of patches from a new contributor, that > contributor will be asked to get an account of their own. > Need for preliminary review or patch proxying removed, ideal situation > established.
Except the pro-GitHub side specifically argues for GitHub as increasing the frequency of first patch submissions, so the total amount of work spent on dealing with them increases. This is on some level a "nice problem to have", but creates a pressure to drop two-stage review and use GitHub as a primary channel to optimize that channel. I.e. once again leading me to the conclusion that two-stage review is simply not viable and runs counter to what the proposal wants to achieve. > Developers cooperating on a patch or patchset before review submission is > nothing new. This sort of "we have a precedent for this" argument comes up a lot, but is often a really poor argument because it doesn't establish that precedent was actually a positive experience or a desirable situation. "We've had this problem before" does not justify "let's have more of that problem". "We are already unhappy" doesn't justify "then let's make decisions that create more unhappyness". It's about what our decisions shift us toward next; precedents are mostly about learning from them (e.g. the unhappy- ness we've seen from having multiple review tools). > I am afraid I didn't get that one. There will be strife around both refusing to use GitHub and wanting to use GitHub exclusively. > I don't think this would be a good idea. > The only review that counts in the end is the one all KDE developers have > access to. Which is Phab. I agree that GitHub has an inclusivity problem, and this subthread has been mostly about why that inclusivity pro- blem can't really be avoided and the problems that would arise from having two tools at once without a consensus addressing inclusivity. For some reason that leads you to "win-win-win scenario" (unless that was sarcasm ... I really couldn't tell) and me to "maybe we shouldn't then". I'm sorry I can't write a more in-depth reply, but I find several of your thoughts really hard to follow/understand - we seem to be in very, very different places on how we perceive the reality of development work or how humans behave in practice or something. I think we'll have to leave it at this and perhaps find out how persuasive either of us appears to the undecided. Cheers, Eike _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
