<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:30, Benjamin Poulain <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benjamin.poulain@nokia.com">benjamin.poulain@nokia.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 01/04/2011 01:48 PM, ext Felix Rohrbach wrote:<br>
> Inspired by a discussion on kde-core-devel mailing list, I thought about the<br>
> review process of rekonq and came to the conclusion that we could use more git<br>
> for it. At the moment, every tester has do download the patch, apply it and,<br>
> after testing, has to clean up their rekonq directory. I think it would be<br>
> less work if everyone contributing regularly to rekonq has his own public<br>
> clone with a branch for each new review request. Then, on reviewboard, you<br>
> just need to say where your remote is and which branch contains the<br>
> feature/bug fix. If you get this request via mail, you don't even have to start<br>
> a browser, you just need to fetch the clone and checkout the branch.<br>
><br>
> What do you think about it?<br>
<br>
</div>I think we had something working quite well with Gitorious and now it is<br>
harder to test patches :)<br>
<br>
Reviewboard is bad, patches are accumulating, and I think it is harder<br>
to contribute patches than before.<br>
<br>
Can we consider moving back to gitorious? (or any system alike you<br>
prefer) and just mirror <a href="http://git.kde.org" target="_blank">git.kde.org</a>?<br>
<br>
<br>
The problem with sending full git branches for review is that you have<br>
the part where it is easy to work with git, but you misses the "review"<br>
part. How do you comment that line X or Y is incorrect?<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
<font color="#888888">Benjamin<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
rekonq mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rekonq@kde.org">rekonq@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>+1<br>I think gitorious offers nicer workflows at the moment.<br>I'm all for keeping personnal clones on gitorious, using merge requests and doing the reviews there, and then integrating the patches on gitorious mainline, which would be sort of "unstable" or a staging area, and merge that back to <a href="http://git.kde.org">git.kde.org</a> only after some sort of a test plan or something has taken place.<br>
I also believe all of this should be discussed on Sunday in two different topics (gitorious and test plan).<br><br>