On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Tom Albers wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:03:28 -0700, Chani <[email protected]> wrote: > > -I don't understand the fuss over reviewboard. currently, reviews > > are sent to groups, independent of where the code is located: for > > example, a plasma review request could be for code in kdelibs, > > workspace/plasma, kdeplasmaaddons, playground, or elsewhere. Are you > > suggesting automating (and therefore changing) these reviewer > > groups, or just the underlying modules? (I would assume the latter, > > but want to be clear here :) > > Also, 90% of the reviews are old cruft that someone forgot to > > close, so imho you'd have no problem just discarding them when a > > move happens. :) > > anything that's not abandoned could be resubmitted. > > Ok, some clarification: currently we have reviewboard projects for > everyone who requested one. One for marble, kmail, plasma, etc. In > the new setup we want to centralize the management of the systems. > That means there is a 1-to-1 mapping between gitolite repositories, > redmine projects and reviewboard projects. That means in the > monolithic approach we would not have a 'kmail' project anymore in > reviewboard, but only the general 'kdepim' project. Kmail review > requests should be submitted to the 'kdepim' project on rb. That > means that there can only be 1 recipient.
Actually, there is no kmail group in Review Board. There is a kdepim group. So the kmail/kdepim example doesn't really work if you want to argue for split repositories. :-) Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
