Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

[David Jarvie]

On Sat, January 31, 2015 8:25 pm, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015, Christoph Feck wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 31 January 2015 20:07:42 Eike Hein wrote:
>>> [...] Qt is using gerrit and we intend to remain a major stakeholde
>>> in Qt development, which means a sizable number of KDE developers
>>> need to be familiar with gerrit anyway [...]
>>
>> Excuse me, but if KDE developers will have to follow equivalent steps
>> as described at http://qt-project.org/wiki/Setting-up-Gerrit to
>> contribute, then I predict another big loss of developers.
>>
>> Christoph Feck (kdepepo)
>>
>
> Maybe quite a few KDE developers would want to contribute to Qt, and maybe
> Qt would like more contributors, but KDE is so much bigger -- I'd like to
> see some numbers, but I seriously doubt that the majority of KDE
> developers are potential Qt developers. Even if we have to work around Qt
> bugs quite often.
>
> In any case, if Qt wants more contributors out of the KDE developer pool,
> they'd better ease up their submission process and drop using gerrit. I
> know that I, and I've been a KDE developer for over a decade, won't do
> anything for Qt in my spare time as long as they have this gerrit-based
> workflow. If people are paying me for it, well, that's different, but no
> way am I going to submit to that process for fun and for for free.
>
> In short, Qt uses gerrit is a bogus argument in favor of gerrit. And I am
> pretty sure that if gerrit becomes a requirement for working on KDE
> projects, KDE will not just lose a lot of developers, it will lose a lot
> of projects.

+1

I occasionally contributed patches in the past to Qt, but since the
current gerrit setup was introduced I've never even contemplated doing so
because it looks too much effort to get to grips with. It's far too
off-putting for occasional contributors.

-- 
David Jarvie.
KDE developer.
KAlarm author - http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm