Using Gerrit for code review in KDE

Ben Cooksley bcooksley at
Sat Sep 13 21:11:43 BST 2014

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Ivan Čukić <ivan.cukic at> wrote:
>> that needs to be reverted because it's actively objectiona-
>> ble. As Ivan pointed out, few of us will ever commit any-
>> thing if we're not confident it would meet with the approval
> While I do agree that we have a strange and unreally awesome community that
> behaves really well (and I do trust most KDE devs), I was approaching to this
> from the same angle as Martin.
> Namely, for the projects that I know the people who are actually the /core/
> team, I always wait their input before pushing something. For those that I
> don't know, I need to check who is in charge, and whether a 'ship it' I got
> actually has any weight behind it.
> +2 would show a newcommer that the review is really by someone who (1) looked
> it in-detail, and (2) by someone who actually knows what he is talking about.
> (this might sound overly strict, but I guess you know what I meant by this)

Shouldn't this be up to the reviewer to use their good judgement when
deciding whether to use +1 or +2?
If they're not the maintainer or don't know the codebase well enough,
then granting +2 would be rather unusual from a social point of view.

> For me, it is not about trust. But rather about providing additional
> information to the submitter. That is why I don't think that the requirement
> for the 'submit' does not need to be limitted to the maintainers/core team.
> Also, Kevin's idea of +1s that got more weight over time (aka the inactive-
> core-team mode) seems nice, though I don't think 1 week is the right ammount
> of time.
> Cheerio,
> Ivan


> --
> KDE, ivan.cukic at,
> gpg key id: 850B6F76,

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list