On Thursday, 16 October 2014 23:43:00 CEST, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In Gerrit, I basically get an ugly command-line interface: I
have to push to
a magic ref encoding all the information (and IIRC, git-cola only lets me
enter the basic refs/for/branchname, the special characters in stuff like
Jan Kundrát wrote:
A random data point -- I asked a 3rd-party contributor to send a patch to
Trojita through Gerrit earlier today. He accomplished that goal so fast
that I asked him for an estimate on how much time it took. The answer was
15 minutes, including reading the docs and setting up
The language for Code-Review +2 now reads Looks good to me and I know this
code, approved. I hope people won't be afraid to approve changes now :).
Cheers,
Jan
--
Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
On Monday, 15 September 2014 16:49:39 CEST, Milian Wolff wrote:
Where do I see the diff there?
Thanks to Ben and his review of my patches, Gerrit is now replicating all
of the changes under review into KDE's git as well. In the context of this
discussion, it means that there's now a link to
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:27AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday 15 September 2014 16:49:39 Milian Wolff wrote:
Where do I see the diff there? In the gerrit that runs on qt-project, I can
easily click one button to go to a unified or side-by-side diff view. Is
that a custom
On Saturday, 13 September 2014 23:05:48 CEST, Eike Hein wrote:
Yeah, that's something I'm OK with too. Maybe we can even
adapt the UI to use strings like Sven proposes?
https://gerrit.vesnicky.cesnet.cz/r/35
With kind regards,
Jan
--
Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client --
On Saturday 13 September 2014 23:05:48 Eike Hein wrote:
On 13.09.2014 22:50, Sven Brauch wrote:
That's my opinion as well. It would be nice to have an explicit way to
differentiate the I think this patch is okay, but I'm not very
familiar with the code you changed (+1) and I'm confident
On Monday 15 September 2014 16:49:39 Milian Wolff wrote:
Where do I see the diff there? In the gerrit that runs on qt-project, I can
easily click one button to go to a unified or side-by-side diff view. Is
that a custom extension? Generally, it seems as if the qt-project gerrit
has a much
On Monday, 15 September 2014 16:49:39 CEST, Milian Wolff wrote:
Where do I see the diff there?
For me, it's easiest to just click on any file name. That will open a diff
view (either side-by-side or a unidiff one, based on your prefs). The diff
shows just a single file, but you can use [ and
On Saturday, 13 September 2014 23:29:55 CEST, David Edmundson wrote:
I think a good example is your patch today (and pretending you're not a
maintainer). There was a single typo in a commit message. I wanted it
fixing, but I don't want to have to have to review that whole thing again
(in
On Saturday, 13 September 2014 20:40:27 CEST, Kevin Krammer wrote:
As for submit, that IMHO should at least also be available to the review
request owner.
Does anyone see advantages of having submit restricted at all once the
necessary approval has been achieved?
I made a mistake when
El Divendres, 12 de setembre de 2014, a les 22:52:40, Marco Martin va
escriure:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net wrote:
If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
can make it happen.
No, definitely not yet
In my opinion, the
On Saturday 13 September 2014 16:51:15 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Divendres, 12 de setembre de 2014, a les 22:52:40, Marco Martin va
escriure:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net wrote:
If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
can
On 13.09.2014 17:49, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
my understanding was that it's still possible to bypass the code review, so I
cannot see that it's against the KDE Manifesto as it's only a kind of social
contract. Or am I missing something.
Personally I like the idea of having the +2 limited to the
On Saturday, 2014-09-13, 17:49:31, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
On Saturday 13 September 2014 16:51:15 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Divendres, 12 de setembre de 2014, a les 22:52:40, Marco Martin va
escriure:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net wrote:
If you would
On 13.09.2014 20:21, Ivan Čukić wrote:
I agree, +2 should be retained by the maintainer, or a smaller set of
developers as decided by the maintainer.
Or perhaps it simply turns out that the whole idea of
*having* a '+2' is incompatible with the KDE community
in the first place.
Do we really
On Saturday, 2014-09-13, 20:38:21, Eike Hein wrote:
These things reinforce each other in multiple ways. If main-
tainers are not entrenched positions, they're easy to replace
when they move on (whether they can accept this themselves or
not). Once you codify them in ACLs (and yes, we do this
On Saturday 13 September 2014 20:38:21 Eike Hein wrote:
The argument but you can still bypass Gerrit and push
directly, this is just social etiquette doesn't matter
because the whole thing is about social etiquette. The
ACLs we already have reflect our social etiquette, and
that means we need
On 13.09.2014 21:10, Kevin Krammer wrote:
So your suggestion would be to not have +2 but a policy of some sort that only
the +1 of the maintainer, if there is an active one, is considered as go
ahead?
Basically my thinking is roughly this: It actually happens
extremely rarely in practice
that needs to be reverted because it's actively objectiona-
ble. As Ivan pointed out, few of us will ever commit any-
thing if we're not confident it would meet with the approval
While I do agree that we have a strange and unreally awesome community that
behaves really well (and I do trust
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Ivan Čukić ivan.cu...@kde.org wrote:
that needs to be reverted because it's actively objectiona-
ble. As Ivan pointed out, few of us will ever commit any-
thing if we're not confident it would meet with the approval
While I do agree that we have a strange and
On Sunday 14 September 2014 08:11:43 Ben Cooksley wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Ivan Čukić ivan.cu...@kde.org wrote:
that needs to be reverted because it's actively objectiona-
ble. As Ivan pointed out, few of us will ever commit any-
thing if we're not confident it would meet
Everyone with a KDE developer account should in principle have
the right to give a +2. One should only use it when appropriate though, i.e.
when one is the maintainer of a given piece of code or when the patch is
simple enough so that one feels safe to give the other the ship-it.
That's my
On 13.09.2014 22:50, Sven Brauch wrote:
That's my opinion as well. It would be nice to have an explicit way to
differentiate the I think this patch is okay, but I'm not very
familiar with the code you changed (+1) and I'm confident this patch
is fine (+2) cases, and I think everyone with a KDE
On 12 Sep 2014 22:53, Marco Martin notm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net wrote:
If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
can make it happen.
No, definitely not yet
In my opinion, the purpose of this test is
On Saturday 13 September 2014 23:29:55 David Edmundson wrote:
On 12 Sep 2014 22:53, Marco Martin notm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net wrote:
If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
can make it happen.
No,
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net wrote:
If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
can make it happen.
No, definitely not yet
In my opinion, the purpose of this test is not to verify that Gerrit
works or that the ACLs are set up properly
On Wednesday, 2014-09-10, 06:54:50, Ben Cooksley wrote:
In regards to why we are permitting Gerrit to be evaluated - it is
primarily to allow for the community to come to a decision. The
complexity of the user interface among other issues are still problems
which sysadmin believes could block
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 20:02:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
In any case, can you see the inconsistency between saying we need highly
active repos to find pain points and these projects will only use it on an
opt-in basis, and not even for all patches? You may as well throw a more
lightly
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 00.23:18 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 21:44:25 CEST, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Having two different patch review systems for one project... I
mean, this is
surely not a good idea. Two places to send patches, to places to review
patches,
Hi,
we agreed on the Frameworks BoF that the following two repos are now using
Gerrit for some initial testing:
- kio
- plasma-framework
Some rudimentary instructions are at
https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Gerrit , edits are welcome.
If you would like to become a Gerrit admin, want to
On 09.09.2014 15:51, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Hi,
we agreed on the Frameworks BoF that the following two repos are now
using Gerrit for some initial testing:
Exclusively, or do they remain on ReviewBoard as well?
Cheers,
Eike
Hello,
OK, I guess there might be some misunderstanding or at least partial
information due to live meeting vs short announcement on list.
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 17:39:54 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 16.59:35 Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 18.49:24 Kevin Ottens wrote:
As it stands with plasma-framework in particular, there is now a
difference
in workflow depending on what *part* of plasma one is working on
(framework
or workspace). So not only is it now different from the majority of
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 18.32:41 Pier Luigi Fiorini wrote:
2014-09-09 17:39 GMT+02:00 Aaron J. Seigo ase...@kde.org:
[1] even if I have my personal doubts w/regards to gerrit's
appropriateness
for KDE
Probably I'm too late for the party, but have you considered gitlab?
Yes; I
On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 20:02:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 18.49:24 Kevin Ottens wrote:
As it stands with plasma-framework in particular, there is now a
difference
in workflow depending on what *part* of plasma one is working on
(framework
or
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 17:39:54 CEST, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
Would it not make more sense to trial it using newer / smaller / unstable
projects, as it is an experiment?
Yes, which is why trojita.git was dogfooding Gerrit before I announced
this.
As it stands with plasma-framework in
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 20:02:55 CEST, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
That would honestly make more sense for Plasma imho, though it still would
make sense to start small and consistent.
A suggestion made by sysadmins was to start with just a couple of repos to
prevent further confusion and to
On 07.09.2014 11:00, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Hi folks,
as requested by Ben, I would like to accounce that Trojita
(extragear/pim/trojita) is now using Gerrit [1] for patch review.
The system is open for other KDE projects as well -- if you're
interested, see [2] for further details, or come to my
On Sunday, 7 September 2014 21:27:44 CEST, Eike Hein wrote:
I'm curious however, what's the state of manifesto-compliance[1]
for the Gerrit instance? Does KDE Sysadmin have admin access and
the ability to get the data out if needed?
This is a very good question. Right now, only I (and other
40 matches
Mail list logo
