Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

[Milian Wolff]

On Saturday 31 January 2015 21:34:40 Eike Hein wrote:
> On 01/31/2015 09:25 PM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > In short, Qt uses gerrit is a bogus argument in favor of gerrit.
> 
> The argument isn't so much that gerrit is working well
> for Qt, but more that there's a certain simplicity in
> using the same tooling across the KDE/Qt stack, and
> that KDE benefits from having more KDE people active in
> Qt. But I actually find contributing to Qt pretty frus-
> trating (the infra is flaky, the process tends to break
> down here and there, and I sometimes have to step out-
> side gerrit and side-channel via email to get things
> moving again), yeah.

Sigh, I find it highly sad to read this over and over again. People keep 
confusing the flaky CI and the high quality barrier in Qt with gerrit 
itself... Seriously, gerrit the tool is OK, what makes it hard and what is the 
actual barrier to entry in Qt are the flaky CI which kills productivity and 
then sometimes the odd reviews with a pretty harsh tone that demand an 
extraordinary quality without holding your hand much. But that's not related 
to gerrit... These are different things, so please people - lets not confuse 
these things and say using gerrit means using it exactly like Qt is using it!

Bye
-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de