Using Gerrit for code review in KDE

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 20:02:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 18.49:24 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > 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 would honestly make more sense for Plasma imho, though it still would
> make sense to start small and consistent.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > ... 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.
> 
> Which makes it more chaotic / less predictable. I'm failing to understand
> how that's desirable. 

Same here.
Having two different patch review systems for one project... I mean, this is 
surely not a good idea. Two places to send patches, to places to review 
patches, two different user interfaces, maybe logins, ...

Alex