[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Using Gerrit for code review in KDE
From:       David Edmundson <david () davidedmundson ! co ! uk>
Date:       2014-09-13 21:29:55
Message-ID: CAGeFrHDSekG5oRCyuxco1e2Oc5ANUVt6De4eYYN7y8WJyjUMqg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12 Sep 2014 22:53, "Marco Martin" <notmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundr=C3=A1t <jkt@flaska.net> wrote:
> >
> > If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of repos and I
> can make it happen.
>
> No, definitely not yet
>
> >
> > In my opinion, the purpose of this test is not to verify that Gerrit
> works or that the ACLs are set up properly -- both were done already.
>
> As part of the experiment i would also like to try to have stricter acls
> for +2 and submit, like starting from mantainers then slowly adding peopl=
e
> (that's also how i understood it would have worked during the bof)
>
> My understanding from the BOF that it would be purely social, and we woul=
d
add if we need it. It's already better than reviewboard given that we have
that +1, +2 separation.

I think a good example is your patch today (and pretending you're not a
maintainer). There was a single typo in a commit message. I wanted it
fixing, but I don't want to have to have to review that whole thing again
(in reviewboard terms "fix it and ship it"). I would have given a +2, but
when you re-push to gerrit I would have to +2 again before you can merge.

It's be a perfect example of where a self +2 would be fine.

David

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 Sep 2014 22:53, &quot;Marco \
Martin&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:notmart@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">notmart@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Jan Kundrát &lt;<a \
href="mailto:jkt@flaska.net" target="_blank">jkt@flaska.net</a>&gt; \
wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; If you would like all plasma to go, just give me a list of \
repos and I can make it happen.<br><br>No, definitely not yet<br><br>&gt;<br>&gt; In \
my opinion, the purpose of this test is not to verify that Gerrit works or that the \
ACLs are set up properly -- both were done already.<br><br>As part of the experiment \
i would also like to try to have stricter acls for +2 and submit, like starting from \
mantainers then slowly adding people (that&#39;s also how i understood it would have \
worked during the bof)<br><br></blockquote><div>My understanding from the BOF that it \
would be purely social, and we would add if we need it. It&#39;s already better than \
reviewboard given that we have that +1, +2 separation.</div><div><br></div><div>I \
think a good example is your patch today (and pretending you&#39;re not a \
maintainer). There was a single typo in a commit message. I wanted it fixing, but I \
don&#39;t want to have to have to review that whole thing again (in reviewboard terms \
&quot;fix it and ship it&quot;). I would have given a +2, but when you re-push to \
gerrit I would have to +2 again before you can merge.  \
</div><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s be a perfect example of where a self +2 would be \
fine.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div></div> </div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic