Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

Kevin Ottens ervin at
Tue Feb 3 11:11:21 GMT 2015


First of all, thank you Boud for the wise words.

On Tuesday 03 February 2015 11:17:59 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> 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.

And not respecting or ignoring other people's point of view will lead to 
bullying or pushing people away.

For the record those numerous mega-threads already pushed some people away 
(I'm aware of several people whom motivation drastically declined just reading 

It'd be nice if everyone would take a deep breath and realize: "it is just a 
tool dammit!"

> 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.

Agreed. I also accept your opinion that gerrit would be a "Bad Thing" even 
though I'm not convinced by that either.

Simply put: I'm not convinced gerrit would be super-good or super-bad for us. 
It's likely something in between.

> 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.

Hear! Hear! Also "it is just a tool dammit!"

Don't forget: If there are people who don't like gerrit you're not a fool 
because you like it.

> 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.

Yes please...

No need for more noise on the matter until we have the experiment done.

Kévin Ottens,

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list