Sysadmin report on the modernization of our infrastructure
bcooksley at kde.org
Wed Jan 21 22:04:56 GMT 2015
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Lübking
<thomas.luebking at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015 20:41:18 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>> - Do we have access to Qt's (ie. KDE's major upstream) decision process
>>> (reasoning) towards gerrit?
>> Our prior requests to be informed when new Qt repositories are setup
> Sorry, I was probably ambiguous here. What I meant is:
> "Do we know why Qt chose gerrit?"
Unfortunately not. Someone who knows the right people or is familiar
with their process will have to fill us in on the details behind their
>>> - The lack of non-repo driven (web interface) patch supplies in gerrit
>>> not seem to have been addressed in the document, but there've been many
>>> calls for such. So what's the state on this?
>> Sorry, not sure I understand this.
>> Phabricator certainly does support uploading patches through the web
> Yes. The question was:
> since this seemed a major issue in the previous thread, but was not
> mentioned as problem w/ gerrit in the report - does that mean the
> webinterface issue has been addressed (by either gerrit supporting such or
> the requirement is gone/replaced)
>> You'll need to ask one of the people more familiar with Gerrit about
>> that i'm afraid.
> My mail was indeed addressed to any interested reader, not particularily you
>> so notes are posted on the task regarding the review, and a note is
>> posted on the review regarding the task and one can see the status of
>> both (open, closed, etc) from those notes.
> That does hopefully not imply one would get two mails for every comment (one
> for being cc'd on the bug and one for the RR), does it?
I guess it would depend on your Herald settings - we would need to
test it's behaviour here.
>From my understanding you can have metadata changes (like associated
commits) not trigger emails.
More information about the kde-core-devel