Changes to our Git infrastructure
thomas.luebking at gmail.com
Mon Jan 5 17:15:41 GMT 2015
On Montag, 5. Januar 2015 18:01:12 CEST, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> "Sending patches around"? That's quite the stretch from
> "submitting a diff to a web interface" and recalls the KDE 1.0
> days. And you're accusing me of language-lawyering?
> The problem here is that you believe -- incorrectly -- that a
> single workflow cannot include more than one tool.
I believe this discussions heat turned into talking in absolutes.
Your truth - my truth.
It's not a matter of what is possible, but of preferences (while we probably all prefer to not return to send patches on mailing lists ;-)
Since they may obviously cover a large range, "scale" seems a major requirement on workflow and tools. Pure CLI access on alinged syntax for efficient pros is as relevant as an easy GUI access for starters.
> Correct. Although I recognize the merits of such an approach, I
> do not believe that the only acceptable way for a code review
> tool to work is on git trees instead of via patches.
I'd assume operating on git trees is certainly far more important for CI than for reviewing patches.
> And I do not believe that this one feature is enough to outright dismiss
> all other options.
See? Absolutes ;-)
No feature trumps all others, but it's a matter of ranking and thus all must be taken into fair and objective consideration.
> distinction you made between contributors and developers, it
> also requires those that want to contribute patches to have full
> KDE developer accounts with commit/push access in order to push
> those diffs up for code review
I don't think this is actually a requirement - the review repo (maybe even branches) could easily have other/lower credential requirements than the vanilla one.
More information about the kde-core-devel