Sysadmin report on the modernization of our infrastructure

Matthew Dawson matthew at
Sat Jan 24 23:23:48 GMT 2015

On January 21, 2015 05:12:07 PM Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
> As promised in the earlier thread, i'd like to present the sysadmin
> report on the state of the infrastructure surrounding our code.
> It contains a detailed summary of what is broken with our existing
> systems, why change is necessary and an evaluation of the options we
> considered. We have also made a proposal based on our evaluations and
> the wishlist of functionality drawn up the community.

Thanks for putting this report together!  I think the outline of the current 
issues and the listed requirements are very useful, and as outlined 
Phabricator does seem like a good contender.

I do have one important question regarding its review system, how does it 
handle a series of commits?  For more complicated changes, there may be 
several commits to get from point A to B that I'd like to get reviewed.  
ReviewBoard doesn't currently handles this, and instead squashes them all into 
one patch (see for instance: , which 
was originally made up of 5 different commits).  One of the plus points of 
Gerrit for me was that it would have shown each of these commits separately 
(though having each become a change isn't ideal to me).  How would Phabricator 
handle a set of commits like this?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list