Changes to our Git infrastructure

Thomas L├╝bking thomas.luebking at
Mon Jan 5 21:46:02 GMT 2015

On Montag, 5. Januar 2015 22:26:24 CEST, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> In short, what I meant is that as a tool to dicuss code 
> changes, Reviewboard is a poor thing. It facilitates 
> nit-picking, which is off-putting and useless, but at least 
> gives the reviewer the feeling he's done his job, while it fails 
> at making it easy to discuss the why, wherefore and how of a 
> particular change.

I don't think this is a problem w/ RB.
When RRs get on k-c-d, many devs who can provide an abstract review are addressed. They can take /this/ load from the actual maintainer/main developer.
But if nobody feels in charge for the addressed component, you won't get an informed response.

Before Ian started the DrKonqui patches I had not seen the drkonqui code even one single time and my idea who worked on it was from the git history....

Bottom line: things are maintained by an individuum or not at all. If everybody is in charge, nobody actually is.


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list