On Friday, December 14, 2012 09:34:36 AM Stephan Deibel wrote: > > I've been lurking on the discussion and while I don't have much > > time/energy or practical skills to contribute in the future > > development, I find it thrilling that plans for the project future are > > being made. > > > > I think it's alarming, though, that the project facilities (JIRA has > > been mentioned several times) obstruct rather than support development > > work. Ensuring project momentum should be the first priority when > > picking the tools and surroundings to work in. > > > > Assuming that there has been no practical synergy benefits with > > sharing the same bugtracker with Qt Project, I don't see why any other > > bugtracker couldn't be used for the project (as long as someone is > > happy to take over the hosting and maintenance responsibilities). Same > > goes with other facilities as well. > > > > If a switch from Gerrit to e.g. GitHub would take place, however, > > that'd imply a bigger separation from Qt Project itself (due to > > licensing issues). If you want to do that, I'd warmly recommend having > > first a discussion with Lars Knoll and esp. Digia's Tuukka Turunen to > > ensure that they have no objections or alternative proposals. Digia > > might still be interested in providing commercial support or licenses > > for PySide, and moving away from Gerrit would prevent them from doing > > that. Still, even that's just a decision to be made, if the core > > contributors feel the current Gerrit setup is counterproductive for > > the project purposes. But at least discuss first with Qt Project and > > Digia... > > Yes, this should certainly be done if a move is considered. However, > I'm not sure if the tools are really the main sticking point right now. > It might rather be a combination of the tools and lack of active > developers w/ the necessary access rights and/or knowledge to see > something through a code review.
Tools aren't the main point, Gerrit is very nice, just JIRA isn't. > For example, while there was a lot of general discussion on the list > recently there's been no reply that I know of to John's email about a > specific problem and proposed solution: > > http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/2012-December/000877.html > > I see two new items in the code review system related to this: > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#q,status:open+pyside,n,z > > As you can see, Hugo is still listed as a required reviewer which > presumably needs to change -- but to whom? I reviewed just one of two patches :-/ To be reviewer, I propose John Ehresman or John Cummings, some of the last useful commits in months were made by them. > One idea is for people to use our experimental shiboken and pyside > repositories listed in John's email above to see if problems are found. > > - Stephan > > _______________________________________________ > PySide mailing list > PySide@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ PySide mailing list PySide@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
