[kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

Kevin Krammer krammer at kde.org
Sat Sep 19 14:35:47 UTC 2015

On Saturday, 2015-09-19, 16:26:04, Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Kevin Krammer ha scritto:
> > On Saturday, 2015-09-19, 12:29:31, Vishesh Handa wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Ivan Čukić <ivan.cukic at kde.org> wrote:
> >>> alternatives. Just as they do not have access to my personal inbox
> >>> 
> >>>> where much corresponse often happens, and patches are discussed.
> >>> 
> >>> Not sure that this is a statement you want to advertise, since it
> >>> implies that the development happens behind the closed doors. (yes, we
> >>> all do that sometimes, but is should not be a part of our workflow,
> >>> and not something we should be proud of)
> >>> 
> >>> Now, with GitHub, it would not be exactly 'development behind the
> >>> closed doors' but for a lot of us it would be basically the same. As
> >>> Martin mentioned, this would be hidden from his eyes since he has no
> >>> intention to follow development on GitHub.
> >> 
> >> Some development does happen behind closed doors. Someone sends me a
> >> patch, I commit it, and then point them towards reviewboard for the
> >> next time. Ditto with bugs actually. I get reports via IRC, emails,
> >> Google+ and even FB (once). If it is minor I act on it, if it isn't I
> >> point the user towards bugzilla or just file a bug myself so that I
> >> don't forget.
> > 
> > Right, this is also my understanding of what is proposed.
> > 
> > If you work on a project where you can push without review, it really
> > doesn't matter how you arrived at the commit, you would have pushed your
> > own version without review as well.
> > 
> > If you work on a project where you have to go through review, then again,
> > it really doesn't matter how the commit has been created, it is still
> > being reviewed.
> > The only difference is that the submitter of the review request is not the
> > author of the commit.
> But that's not using the pull request. Such workflow would mean that the
> pull request is not accepted anyway, but the code is pushed through the
> infrastructure and not trough Github interface.

I though that a pull request was a way for one clone's owner to notify the 
main repo owner that the clone had a change they would like to propose for 

The repo owner could then pull the clone at the given revision and then follow 
whatever workflow they would like to follow.

In a KDE project with mandatory review that would be uploading the change to 

In a KDE project without mandatory review that could be uploading to KDE's 
review or pushing to the KDE git server.

> Just to be sure, question for Vishes, Albert Vaca, Jaroslaw: can you please
> explain exactly what is the meaning of "use Github"? Do we all agree that in
> any way pull requests will never be merged directly through Github
> interface?

What sense would that even make?
Then the mirror would have a different state than the repo it is mirroring.

Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20150919/7c61896c/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-community mailing list