Using Gerrit for code review in KDE

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

OK, I guess there might be some misunderstanding or at least partial 
information due to live meeting vs short announcement on list.

On Tuesday 09 September 2014 17:39:54 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 16.59:35 Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 16:44:22 CEST, Eike Hein wrote:
> > > Exclusively, or do they remain on ReviewBoard as well?
> > 
> > My understanding is that they do remain on RB as well for now. The goal of
> > this excercise is to get some understanding on how Gerrit works and
> > whether it's a good match for frameworks; we aren't imposing some
> > wide-ranging changes.
> 
> Would it not make more sense to trial it using newer / smaller / unstable
> projects, as it is an experiment?

People at the meeting picked those two because it was deemed desirable to 
avoid using something small or not too active to find the pain points. I think 
it makes sense. For something which seldom get patches it's unlikely we'll 
have enough information for later decision.

> As it stands with plasma-framework in particular, there is now a difference
> in workflow depending on what *part* of plasma one is working on (framework
> or workspace). So not only is it now different from the majority of
> frameworks, it is also "different from itself".

It was focused on KF5, but if Plasma people feel like having all the related 
repositories part of the experiment they could decide it but...
 
> That this doesn't follow current documentation (such as it is) for new
> developers certainly can't help any.

... the experiment is not about Gerrit vs Gitolite + ReviewBoard. It is Gerrit 
in addition to Gitolite + ReviewBoard. In that sense it is very different from 
the earlier GitLab experiment. Also it is completely opt-in for developers 
when they submit patches.

I then doubt it would be a problem for new developers. The only thing they 
would "loose" by default is the knowledge of some of the patches cooking up in 
Gerrit when the team tests it. But I would be surprised if the majority of new 
developers actively look at the list of patches prepared in RB either.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- 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: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20140909/3dc8cd9b/attachment.sig>