Changes to our Git infrastructure

[Boudewijn Rempt]

Well, this getting to a pretty useless discussion. You set out to prove 
that you find it all very simple, and I am sure you find it simple.

You don't have to rebut everything I say point by point to prove whatever 
you think you are proving because the point is this: you find it simple, 
others don't. What you have to do is accept is this: others don't. The 
rest of the world is fine with accepting that you think it's simple, 
that's not the point of the discussion.

So, yes, you cannot write a git-for-dummies manual, for that we need 
a genius like David Revoy. Just get this: you hope everyone has met a 
DVCS. I regularly meet people for whom git is a magic way of getting new 
features, and who have _no_ idea at all about what version control is, or 
what source code is. And many of them turn out to be awesome contributors, 
and some even, after a year or two, help with git bisecting a particular 
bug.

So all I want to make sure here is that participation in KDE is as 
accessible as possible to the great majority of the world that doesn't 
want to play the 'serious software engineer', qt-project.org-style.

That is why I've given the link to what non-engineers active in #krita 
think about KDE's infrastructure, and that's why I've tried to show you 
how intimidating something you find very simple actually is, how many 
steps that you know are optional, or necessary, you actually forgot to 
mention in your little list.

  On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

> El Dilluns, 5 de gener de 2015, a les 22:22:19, Boudewijn Rempt va escriure:
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>>> I think this is due to the fact that it's quite simple
>>> git clone kde:repo
>>
>> This requires:
>>
>> * setting up gitconfig with the kde: alias. That requires finding the
>> right info on techbase, as well as the awareness that techbase exists.
> You can always just use the full url.
>
>> * figuring out the reponame for a particular project (and that isn't as
>> easy as just downloading the entire trunk of kde's svn repo -- even if I
>> never did that myself)
> Sure, if you don't know the repo name you're out of luck, not that downloading
> the whole trunk would help you much more (you can still grep but it may take
> ages)
>
>>
>>> do coding
>>> git commit
>>
>> * using the commit template
> You don't really need a commit template (though it's nice if you use it)
>
>> * with the relevant keywords
> You don't really need to use the keywrods (though it's nice if you use it)
>
>> * having a grasp of what a git commit is, especially that a commit isn't
>> visbile to anyone else
> Any modern (i.e. DVCS) has that concept, sure it's complicated for cvs/svn
> people, i'd like to think most of us has worked with a DVCS at the moment.
>
>>> git push
>>
>> But not before you have
>>
>> * realized that you need to push, i.e. what local and remote is
> Same as above, it's DCVS.
>
>> * figured out what branches are for, and how different projects handle
>> those
> Right, that's hardly documentable though (and will get old soon most probably)
>
>> * got your kde indenity
> Every system needs it's own identity system, we use ours.
>
>> * posted it on the right reviewboard
> Reviewboard is not mandatory (though it's nice)
>
>> * to the right reviewers
> Yes, you either have to pick the reviewers or let a robot do your job.
>
> That said, i'm not saying contributing is easy, i'm just saying the "pure git"
> part is not that hard, it's all the "project overhead" (branches, review,
> account, etc) that really makes it harder (in my opinion).
>
> Cheers,
>  Albert
>
>