On 5 Jan 2015, at 12:39, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Monday, 5 January 2015 18:01:12 CEST, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
The problem here is that you believe -- incorrectly -- that a single
workflow cannot include more than one tool. The reason I can
definitively say that you are incorrect is because your own preferred
workflow involves more than one tool, regardless of how they
interact. And if yours does, you can't complain about other workflows
that do.
I was complaining about an IMHO artificial split where drive-by people
submit changes in a different way than core developers. I stated that
this introduces some needless difference to the way devs and
contributors work, and that we should check whether there are tools
that remove this difference. I know that e.g. Gerrit removes that
difference, so I am not thrilled by the idea of using something
without that feature.
Understandable, although I think that as our policy currently stands
over who can commit to repos, this is necessary anyways (since you need
a developer account to commit, and once you have that you could work on
a topic branch). It's also pretty common -- e.g. most GitHub repos don't
allow people to commit directly, but rather go through a merge request
workflow. But I understand why you feel that this would be a regression.
That's another thing where I should have probably worded my responses
better. The requirements I listed were things which I found valuable
for my work. I did not mean to say that it's the only possible way of
doing reviews, or that I found everybody who disagrees with me to be a
moron. It's just that these features are important for me, so I would
like to see them and I wanted to make sure they are listed as a
requirement in a list of points gathered by the community.
OK, sorry for misunderstanding.
Maybe this misunderstanding is caused by sysadmins likely perceiving
the requrements as hard ones which MUST be provided by any solution,
while my impression is that we were asked to say what is important for
us, and the evaluation is to be performed by us all together, not just
the sysadmins.
It's definitely why Ben put out a call for people to list requirements.
We want to make sure that we understand what people are looking for. But
it did seem like some people (not just you) were essentially saying "if
it doesn't have X we must not use it", regardless of whether a solution
has A, B, C, ...
Given the earlier distinction you made between contributors and
developers, it also requires those that want to contribute patches to
have full KDE developer accounts with commit/push access in order to
push those diffs up for code review...something not required from a
web interface requiring only an Identity account.
There is no need for full KDE developer account to upload changes for
review with Gerrit. All that is needed is a regular Identity account.
OK. I was unaware of that since (normally speaking) Gerrit intercepts
pushed refs and then pushes them into g.k.o.
--Jeff
