Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Milian Wolff wrote:

> Sigh, I find it highly sad to read this over and over again.

Well, this whole discussion makes me extremely sad. What people have to 
learn is that _arguments_ only go so far. People can feel they're 
double-plus extra-super right, and still at one point they have to accept 
that they're not going to change the other people's point of view.

So, here is my point of view, put very simply:

* replacing reviewboard with gerrit will mean fewer contributors to 
many of the projects KDE hosts.
* following from that, projects that want to stay alive and relevant will 
move away from the kde infrastructure.
* which makes gerrit a Bad Thing.

This is what I am sure _will_ happen, no matter how much anyone argues 
that gerrit is cool, can be cool, will be cool, won't be as uncool as it's 
for Qt, how lovely gerrit's git integration is, how nice it is to train 
people to contribute to Qt, that nobody has tested phabricator yet and so 
on ad infinitum. I've read it all, and I'm not convinced.

There are people who like gerrit and would love to use it. I accept that.

But there is not going to be a broadly supported consensus that gerrit is 
cool and should be used by KDE in the development workflow. There is not 
going to be a consensus that gerrit should replace reviewboard, sorry, no 
matter over how many mails the same arguments get rehashed.

That's something people who like gerrit have to accept.

Now, phabricator might be just as crappy, though if Blender uses it... 
(But that's the same argument as Qt uses it is for gerrit and just as 
invalid), but let's first _test_ it, as Ben proposed.


Boudewijn