Changes to our Git infrastructure

[Thomas Lübking]

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.

Cheers,
Thomas