[Kde-scm-interest] KDE Git hosting status update

[Ian Monroe]

2010/6/9 Eike Hein <hein at kde.org>:
> Hi,
>
> as all of you know, over the past several months the board of KDE
> e.V., on behalf of the KDE community, has been in negotiations with
> Shortcut AS to investigate the possibility of KDE hosting its full
> set of planned Git repositories on Shortcut's Gitorious.org plat-
> form. At the end of this process, it became clear that a mutually
> acceptable agreement was not in the cards.
>
> The board informed the KDE Sysadmin team, of which I'm a member and
> on behalf of which I'm writing to you now, of this likely outcome
> in late May and asked us to start seriously looking into how we
> would implement Git hosting in the context of our own infrastruc-
> ture, which had always been on the table as an option as well.
>
> In response to the board's request, the Sysadmin team has performed
> a series of test installations and evaluations of software stacks
> and compiled a report detailling the solution we decided we should
> run with. This report has been shared with the board and the mem-
> bership of KDE e.V. earlier today and we're happy to say has so far
> been met with very positive feedback.
>
> We're sharing it with you now - see the attachments to this mail -
> and hope you will agree that we have found a solid way forward for
> the KDE Git migration efforts.
>
> We look forward to your input, and will naturally keep you posted
> as the situation develops further with regard to the production-
> readyness of KDE's Git hosting facilities, and of course will have
> to work together on future migrations both from svn.kde.org and of
> the repositories we currently have on Gitorious.org.

Great report and thanks to the sysadmin team for making this happen.

How does ReviewBoard merge requests work with Git? At work there was a
script that submitted patches to reviewboard from a git repo, so it
was still very much patch-based. The problem with patches is that
don't have the context saved of what they were patching aganist. It's
kind of the whole point of Git branches.

But I haven't looked much at ReviewBoard+git, and certainly not its
unreleased features. So I'm basically wondering if the basic workflow
of Gitorious merge requests is preserved in ReviewBoard: work on issue
in a private or feature branch, request that the branch get merged,
make corrections based on suggestions in the review request, merge
finished branch. If ReviewBoard can't review branches its not really
functionally the same as Gitorious and serves quite a different
purpose (though I can't disagree with the overall conclusion of the
sysadmin team).

Ian