Rekonq default

Ingo Klöcker kloecker at
Sun Feb 21 00:04:02 GMT 2010

On Saturday 20 February 2010, Eike Hein wrote:
> On 02/20/2010 07:50 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > Why? Because the reviewers are not capable of using git? That's
> > ridiculous. We do not have to follow our established workflows
> > religiously if they do not make sense.
> I'd certainly prefer it if we could avoid the detour
> into SVN. But the contra argument you're sure to hear
> is that the kdereview dir in SVN concentrates every-
> thing that is up for review in one place, making it
> easier for people to make code review part of their
> regular routine. Basically it's less about the SCM
> and more about the fact that the SVN dir listing
> serves as index of things that are up for review.
> One solution is to move the index elsewhere: We could
> set up a page on Techbase where people looking for re-
> view would have to add their apps, with links to the
> source and the module they're looking to join.

Agreed. When we switch to git we will anyway have to change the 
workflow. We could use rekonq as test case for the new workflow.

> Review-
> ers could even add their sign-offs there (or perhaps
> we'd want to keep that on the mailing lists for high-
> er fidelity).
> The other thing with kdereview in SVN is that by its
> very nature every KDE developer and thus every review-
> wer has commit access there. Often you see people hel-
> ping out with getting code into shape in the review
> phase. If you want to retain this highly positive
> effect on Gitorious, you have to straighten out the
> repository permissions at the start of review, not
> at the conclusion. That's also doable, of course.

I'm not sure what you mean. The rekonq authors stated in this thread 
that they will change the permissions to the groups also used for Amarok 
and Konversation. This will give all KDE developers the necessary 
permissions for the rekonq repository (provided the developers have 
created a Gitorious account, but that's the least problem).

> A
> good first step would be to document how a repo needs
> to be set up on Techbase; in practice I've been han-
> ding out links to the mails I wrote to the Konversa-
> tion mailing lists explaining the Amarok and Konver-
> sation setup to the team so far, but they could use
> some editing for a broader audience. Actually I think
> jpwhiting had started on that ...

Yes, we definitely need such documentation.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list