Using Gerrit for code review in KDE

[Milian Wolff]

On Saturday 13 September 2014 23:29:55 David Edmundson wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2014 22:53, "Marco Martin" <notmart at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát <jkt at flaska.net> wrote:
> > > If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
> > 
> > can make it happen.
> > 
> > No, definitely not yet
> > 
> > > In my opinion, the purpose of this test is not to verify that Gerrit
> > 
> > works or that the ACLs are set up properly -- both were done already.
> > 
> > As part of the experiment i would also like to try to have stricter acls
> > for +2 and submit, like starting from mantainers then slowly adding people
> > (that's also how i understood it would have worked during the bof)
> > 
> > My understanding from the BOF that it would be purely social, and we would
> 
> add if we need it. It's already better than reviewboard given that we have
> that +1, +2 separation.
> 
> I think a good example is your patch today (and pretending you're not a
> maintainer). There was a single typo in a commit message. I wanted it
> fixing, but I don't want to have to have to review that whole thing again
> (in reviewboard terms "fix it and ship it"). I would have given a +2, but
> when you re-push to gerrit I would have to +2 again before you can merge.
> 
> It's be a perfect example of where a self +2 would be fine.

This, btw, is accepted behavior in Qt for those that are approvers or 
maintainers. In KDE, everyone has that status. So everyone can +2 himself if 
needed.

Bye
-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de