Changes to our Git infrastructure

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Monday, January 5, 2015 22.26:24 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.

That is a development culture issue than no tool can fix. Reviewboard is great 
for discussing changes in the hands of people who value that sort of 
interaction. It also can be used to deliver only nitpicking in a non-
constructive manner. The difference in experience comes down to the what the 
people using it value.

Where reviewboard is not good enough is in making it easy to quickly try the 
patch (bi-directional scm integration) ... but the commenting and discussion 
features are pretty much as good as it gets.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20150105/dea65fd2/attachment.sig>