[kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

Eike Hein hein at kde.org
Sat Sep 19 17:12:04 UTC 2015



On 09/19/2015 06:57 PM, Vishesh Handa wrote:
>>   The topology of 'project' is not a match to our repository
>>   topology, which is incidental and an implementation detail.
>>   It's not possible to cleanly turn GitHub on or off along
>>   the - ever-shifting - social boundaries involved.
>>
> 
> I don't follow. And reviewboard will still be the primary source.

Some of the pro-arguments have been "it's opt-in" and
"you can ignore it if you want" in the context of
"projects". But in reality the toggle is per-repository,
and project != repository. Plasma is comprised of many
repositories. I maintain subfolders in plasma-desktop.git
but not the whole of it. I can't opt out of GitHub for,
say, the Task Manager if it's enabled for plasma-desktop.

There's no way to ignore GitHub and maintain common owner-
ship, really - for that reason and for the reason that a
gimped GitHub presence is arguable worse than no presence
(because it snubs rather than ignores an audience) the
decision is IMHO between 'allow GitHub code review in
general or don't'.


>> * Different per-project tooling definitely creates pressures
>>   on projects to provide the same tooling as other projects.
>>   We've got practical experiences with this from our trial
>>   runs with gerrit and Phabricator.
>>
> 
> And we can be sensible and see what pressures we're going to
> accommodate with and which we arent'. Not really an issue.

I'm saying that past experience has shown us that many devs
are frustrated about having to use multiple code review sites
and want back to one. This directly reads on the GitHub dis-
cussion, what's sensible about ignoring that ...?


> Your core workflow is NOT fragmented if github is an addition which is
> not recommended.

Of course it's fragmented if code review happens on GitHub
for code I co-own by way of common ownership. There is no
way around that. The common owners of our code have to deal
with two code review sites starting from the first pull req.

I'd like us to simply not pretend otherwise. Allowing GitHub
affects everyone. Allowing GitHub in addition to our own
infrastructure is fragmentation. Those are simply facts. The
debate should be entirely about whether we want to live with
that or not.

Your "But we also use Google Hangouts" argument is much more
relevant. In fact, as someone who doesn't use Google Hangouts
and has repeatedly been pressured into using it or missed out
on opportunities to participate in decisions because of it,
I can tell you exactly what the downsides are to trying to
ignore the fragmentation that it constitutes.


> Just as if someone project is shipping Windows binaries, one cannot
> step up and maintain that project. Big deal! There are always
> differences.

Can we retire the Windows argument though? Project input !=
project output.


Cheers,
Eike



More information about the kde-community mailing list