Changes to our Git infrastructure

Jeff Mitchell mitchell at
Mon Jan 5 17:53:44 GMT 2015

On 5 Jan 2015, at 12:39, Jan Kundrát wrote:

> On Monday, 5 January 2015 18:01:12 CEST, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> The problem here is that you believe -- incorrectly -- that a single 
>> workflow cannot include more than one tool. The reason I can 
>> definitively say that you are incorrect is because your own preferred 
>> workflow involves more than one tool, regardless of how they 
>> interact. And if yours does, you can't complain about other workflows 
>> that do.
> I was complaining about an IMHO artificial split where drive-by people 
> submit changes in a different way than core developers. I stated that 
> this introduces some needless difference to the way devs and 
> contributors work, and that we should check whether there are tools 
> that remove this difference. I know that e.g. Gerrit removes that 
> difference, so I am not thrilled by the idea of using something 
> without that feature.

Understandable, although I think that as our policy currently stands 
over who can commit to repos, this is necessary anyways (since you need 
a developer account to commit, and once you have that you could work on 
a topic branch). It's also pretty common -- e.g. most GitHub repos don't 
allow people to commit directly, but rather go through a merge request 
workflow. But I understand why you feel that this would be a regression.

> That's another thing where I should have probably worded my responses 
> better. The requirements I listed were things which I found valuable 
> for my work. I did not mean to say that it's the only possible way of 
> doing reviews, or that I found everybody who disagrees with me to be a 
> moron. It's just that these features are important for me, so I would 
> like to see them and I wanted to make sure they are listed as a 
> requirement in a list of points gathered by the community.

OK, sorry for misunderstanding.

> Maybe this misunderstanding is caused by sysadmins likely perceiving 
> the requrements as hard ones which MUST be provided by any solution, 
> while my impression is that we were asked to say what is important for 
> us, and the evaluation is to be performed by us all together, not just 
> the sysadmins.

It's definitely why Ben put out a call for people to list requirements. 
We want to make sure that we understand what people are looking for. But 
it did seem like some people (not just you) were essentially saying "if 
it doesn't have X we must not use it", regardless of whether a solution 
has A, B, C, ...

>> Given the earlier 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...something not required from a 
>> web interface requiring only an Identity account.
> There is no need for full KDE developer account to upload changes for 
> review with Gerrit. All that is needed is a regular Identity account.

OK. I was unaware of that since (normally speaking) Gerrit intercepts 
pushed refs and then pushes them into g.k.o.


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list