[Kde-pim] Problems with infrastructure

Milian Wolff mail at milianw.de
Mon Dec 15 09:48:16 GMT 2014

On Saturday 13 December 2014 18:13:41 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dissabte, 13 de desembre de 2014, a les 13:46:24, Jan Kundrát va 
> > On Friday, 12 December 2014 22:44:39 CEST, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > >> That's very different from saying "whole KDE should just
> > >> switch to Gerrit", and I'm not proposing that. Some people have made
> > >> themselves clear that no change is going to happen, and I can live with
> > >> that.
> > > 
> > > Where was that discussed? Which people is that?
> > 
> > (Removing PIM from the list, because I don't see this as a PIM matter.)
> > 
> > That was the impression which I got from the #kde-devel IRC channel and
> > the
> > kde-core-devel ML right after that frameworks BoF during Akademy. When
> > re-reading the threads and the IRC logs today, I no longer have the
> > impression that there was a clear, absolute and strict "no", but there was
> > nonetheless IMHO quite a strong resistance to using something "as horrific
> > as Gerrit". That might explain why I think that there will be a subset of
> > people who won't be fine with any change, and because I respect their
> > opinion, I don't want to force such a change upon them.
> As i said there is value in uniformity of the tooling, I like to think we're
> all reasonable people and understand that if the majority thinks it's a
> better tool, it makes sense to move to that tool. That's what happened with
> git.
> And if after evaluating it, it doesn't make sense, we don't. That's what
> happened with gitlab.
> Now to me it seems that you're basically saying "you" do what you want, i'll
> keep using "my" stuff. Which i find sad since it's creating artificial
> barriers between "you" and "my" :/
> It also puts the discussion about a possible switch to gerrit in a weird
> situaion since we either all switch and have uniformity or we don't and then
> we end up with reviewborad+gerrit :/

Personally, I don't see why its a bad thing to have two options, if both 
fulfill a different users needs. Reviewboard is apparently liked by some, and 
its certainly simple to send trivial patches with it. Gerrit otoh is much 
better for people who work a lot on projects, as you can get much more 
productive with it. You just use git, and the rest is handled by the web ui.

> > So, basically, from my point of view -- the tools are here, the CI is
> > done.i
> > That CI bits in particular make the workflow much more appealing to me.
> > Now
> > it's up to the KDE developers to come to a decision whether they want that
> > or not.
> Maybe you could start a thread explaining why gerrit is better than
> reviewboard nd why should we switch to it?

I can just say that I like using it in the setup they have for Qt. Much more 
productive to work on patch sets and then pushing them to an alias remote. 
Then I can fix them up and/or rebase and push again to update everything. With 
reviewboard, I'd need to manually push each individual patch, and updating 
them is again as much work.

Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list