Sysadmin report on the modernization of our infrastructure

[Ben Cooksley]

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
decision.

>
>
>>> - The lack of non-repo driven (web interface) patch supplies in gerrit
>>> does
>>> 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
>> interface.
>
>
> 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.

>
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas

Thanks,
Ben