Changes to our Git infrastructure

Jeff Mitchell mitchell at
Mon Dec 29 21:49:24 GMT 2014

On 29 Dec 2014, at 16:40, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:19:37 -0500
> "Jeff Mitchell" <mitchell at> wrote:
>> On 29 Dec 2014, at 15:20, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
>>> I am absolutely not qualified to comment on the pain this is
>>> causing to
>>> you sysadmins. But are we talking about / is the problem inherent
>>> to the
>>> _concept_ of scratch repos, or is it a problem of the
>>> implementation of
>>> how exactly scratch repos are created?
>> I'm honestly not sure how to answer that; scratch repos are very much
>> an implementation because we had a solution. It seemed like something
>> that could be useful, and we had the capability with the current
>> software, so we did it. In hindsight, it has been problematic.
> What I mean is, it seems somewhat unclear what aspects exactly of
> scratch repos are the problem. So I'll try to clarify:
> To me, the essence of the "concept" of a scratch repo is the three
> points, I listed, i.e. (reiterating), creating a repo
> - without _any_ questions asked (other than the name)
> - in a not-quite-as-visible area / prefix
> - following more liberal rules, e.g. about force pushing
> A different aspect, that is not so important to me, is that scratch
> repos can be created instantly via certain SSH commands without any
> interaction with sysadmins. This is what I referred to as
> "implementation".
> In these terms, "concept" is what I care about. And if this "concept"
> can be preserved, consider me happy with any "implementation".

Concept can be preserved. Implementation may or may not be able to be 
preserved. Or, implementation may not be preserved initially, and will 
be fully preserved eventually (as in, when new custom patches are 


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list