Using Gerrit for code review in KDE

Jan Kundrát jkt at
Tue Sep 9 22:58:07 BST 2014

On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 17:39:54 CEST, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> Would it not make more sense to trial it using newer / smaller / unstable 
> projects, as it is an experiment?

Yes, which is why trojita.git was dogfooding Gerrit before I announced 

> 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".

Yes, I understand that this is suboptimal from the consistency point of 
view. But at the same time, the impression I got at the BoF was that people 
in general like Gerrit and would like to at least consider adapting it. In 
order to reach that goal, using it for at least a couple of repositories 
which are also used by these people who are interested in its ultimate 
adoption makes a lot of sense, IMHO, which is why we decided to give it a 
try with kio.git and plasma-framework.git.

Please note that this is "testing" as in "we'll see if people like the 
setup". The tool itself and its integration with the rest of the KDE 
infrastructure, the git hooks and what not have all been tested already. I 
would not dare to propose testing of *that* on somebody else's repo, of 

> That this doesn't follow current documentation (such as it is) for new 
> developers certainly can't help any.

If the test turns out good, the docs will be updated. I do not think that 
it would be appropriate to update the documentation at this point, though, 
because Gerrit is still an alternative and not *the* way of submitting 
patches for these two repos. What I'm looking for now is a certain level of 
buy-in from the project maintainers. Once these guys are confident that our 
particular configuration of Gerrit is good, then we can go ahead and it a 
default for "non-core developers", and that would be the time to update the 

> +1 for striving to improve KDE's infrastructure[1], -1 for 
> experimenting with 
> significant core repositories that are part of a larger stable release.

I feel that this might be the core of your argument, actually. Do you think 
that there are any risks with having Gerrit enabled? If so, what are these 
risks that you see?

> [1] even if I have my personal doubts w/regards to gerrit's appropriateness 
> for KDE

Could you please elaborate on this one?

With kind regards,

Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client --

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list