sentry evaluation

[Harald Sitter]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:39 PM David Edmundson
<david at davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm not sure the teams and groups really work out right now. Do we
> need to request access to groups and have that approved?

That is how it used to be, yes. I've just sprinkled some code at the
instance that should allow us to forgo the approval system though,
only KDE developers can now log in (which is what the approval was
based on anyway).

The way this works in general is that "issues" get sent to a "project"
and that project can be part of multiple teams but to get access to
the data the developer has to opt into a team with access to a given
project first. Alas, I don't think we'll get around the opt-in.
Someone who's only interested in e.g. kwin would get annoyed by/ignore
the noise caused by e.g. ktuberling. That said, projects can be part
of multiple teams and we can have as many teams as we feel like.

> There was also a minor issue that a plasma bug might have a frameworks
> or Qt fix, but I couldn't reliably say "fixed in next version", it's
> not a case which sentry had a good infra for. (bugzilla also isn't
> amazing at that)

Indeed. It's a complicated problem in particular because we are not
the binary distributor for regular linuxy builds. I don't really have
a good answer here unfortunately.

> >Should we move ahead with a more permanent setup?
>
> 100% has my vote. Can we do things on a per-project basis? We can
> surface things in the Plasma UI right now, and there's still a while
> before release to pivot if needed.

I suppose we could do things per-project. What advantage do you think
we gain from this? Everything routes through drkonqi anyway and at
that point it makes no difference if we are inspecting kate or
kinfocenter.

HS