From kde-core-devel  Mon Jan 05 21:46:26 2015
From: "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () kde ! org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:46:26 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Changes to our Git infrastructure
Message-Id: <177583239.rgR9AFW1O9 () serenity>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=142049450215393
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart1646720.CCAaauAinH"


--nextPart1646720.CCAaauAinH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Monday, January 5, 2015 22.26:24 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> In short, what I meant is that as a tool to dicuss code changes,
> Reviewboard is a poor thing. It facilitates nit-picking, which is
> off-putting and useless, but at least gives the reviewer the feeling =
he's
> done his job, while it fails at making it easy to discuss the why,
> wherefore and how of a particular change.

That is a development culture issue than no tool can fix. Reviewboard i=
s great=20
for discussing changes in the hands of people who value that sort of=20=

interaction. It also can be used to deliver only nitpicking in a non-
constructive manner. The difference in experience comes down to the wha=
t the=20
people using it value.

Where reviewboard is not good enough is in making it easy to quickly tr=
y the=20
patch (bi-directional scm integration) ... but the commenting and discu=
ssion=20
features are pretty much as good as it gets.

=2D-=20
Aaron J. Seigo
--nextPart1646720.CCAaauAinH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAlSrBjUACgkQ1rcusafx20MrywCfRA6dAhclYYpvRAyk7JdaKz09
jIAAn2sYSaQT2BNbwZCuv9eX1z7HFL1O
=SVUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1646720.CCAaauAinH--