On Saturday 13 December 2014 18:13:41 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El Dissabte, 13 de desembre de 2014, a les 13:46:24, Jan Kundrát va escriure: > > On Friday, 12 December 2014 22:44:39 CEST, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > >> That's very different from saying "whole KDE should just > > >> switch to Gerrit", and I'm not proposing that. Some people have made > > >> themselves clear that no change is going to happen, and I can live with > > >> that. > > > > > > Where was that discussed? Which people is that? > > > > (Removing PIM from the list, because I don't see this as a PIM matter.) > > > > That was the impression which I got from the #kde-devel IRC channel and > > the > > kde-core-devel ML right after that frameworks BoF during Akademy. When > > re-reading the threads and the IRC logs today, I no longer have the > > impression that there was a clear, absolute and strict "no", but there was > > nonetheless IMHO quite a strong resistance to using something "as horrific > > as Gerrit". That might explain why I think that there will be a subset of > > people who won't be fine with any change, and because I respect their > > opinion, I don't want to force such a change upon them. > > As i said there is value in uniformity of the tooling, I like to think we're > all reasonable people and understand that if the majority thinks it's a > better tool, it makes sense to move to that tool. That's what happened with > git. > > And if after evaluating it, it doesn't make sense, we don't. That's what > happened with gitlab. > > Now to me it seems that you're basically saying "you" do what you want, i'll > keep using "my" stuff. Which i find sad since it's creating artificial > barriers between "you" and "my" :/ > > It also puts the discussion about a possible switch to gerrit in a weird > situaion since we either all switch and have uniformity or we don't and then > we end up with reviewborad+gerrit :/
Personally, I don't see why its a bad thing to have two options, if both fulfill a different users needs. Reviewboard is apparently liked by some, and its certainly simple to send trivial patches with it. Gerrit otoh is much better for people who work a lot on projects, as you can get much more productive with it. You just use git, and the rest is handled by the web ui. > > So, basically, from my point of view -- the tools are here, the CI is > > done.i > > That CI bits in particular make the workflow much more appealing to me. > > Now > > it's up to the KDE developers to come to a decision whether they want that > > or not. > > Maybe you could start a thread explaining why gerrit is better than > reviewboard nd why should we switch to it? I can just say that I like using it in the setup they have for Qt. Much more productive to work on patch sets and then pushing them to an alias remote. Then I can fix them up and/or rebase and push again to update everything. With reviewboard, I'd need to manually push each individual patch, and updating them is again as much work. Bye -- Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de http://milianw.de
