[rekonq] Re: Using git for review

[Benjamin Poulain]

On 01/05/2011 10:53 AM, ext Andrea Diamantini wrote:
> No :(
>
> While I'm one of the promoters of the discussion in k-c-d and it's
> perfectly clear to me that gitorious works really better than
> reviewboard, considering our workflow, I also am aware that we ARE a KDE
> project and I don't want to minimize the HUGE work done by our sysadmins
> implementing the git infrastructure.
>
> the gitolite + cgit choice is really good and while the reviewboard one
> is not so good as the others, I think we should work INSIDE the
> community to fix and improve the things we don't like and/or would better.
>
> I also think that, given a group of developers, let's say the "rekonq
> group", it should not be super hard implementing a system to
> automagically push/update a remote clone on reviewboard, adding in the
> description the name of the remote branch, so that the reviewer can
> (again, automagically) pull it.
>
> Last think I miss from gitorious is the ability for the reviewer to
> close the submitted/rejected requests. There are around 5 now in our
> reviewboard.
>
> This will improve our current workflow, IMHO at the level of the
> gitorious times, and will let us continue being an "innovative" group in
> the KDE community.

Review board is oriented diff, what we need is something capable to 
handle branches.

Big changes on git are usually made of dozens of commit. Reading through 
those commits gives you a better picture of the changes. Reviewboard 
does not give such things.

You are assuming the sysadmin are willing to improve the process. Are 
they part of a project using git so they can see the pain of the process 
by themself?

I am not into politics, I don't really care where the code is hosted. I 
would rather have something that works :)

cheers,
Benjamin