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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Changes to our Git infrastructure
From:       Thomas_Lübking <thomas.luebking () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-01-06 0:47:52
Message-ID: 3da68d0a-2a96-4bc1-a017-ed758fad2b48 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Montag, 5. Januar 2015 23:53:02 CEST, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> I'm just trying to make clear that reviewboard is a crappy tool 
> inciting people to write crappy reviews that drive people away. 

And I was trying to make clear that those "crappy reviews" are just the house \
cleaning stuff that should ideally go along w/ the functional reviews. That you \
believe it's the only kind of review you get implies that you would simply not have \
gotten any other review otherwise. Not ideal, but rather unrelated.

> Apart from any other nonsense about cultural differences (the 
> standard cop-out from Dutchmen and Germans -- I ain't rude, I'm 
> just honest, it's cultural!)

Sorry, I was just trying to understand what could get anyone scared about a very \
simple and direct "please fix this, this and that" list - it would have to be fixed \
anyway at some point.

I'm sorry if you or anyone feels offended by the way it's presented, but to change \
that, one would first need to have a remote idea, what's so driving away about it. \
And sorry again, but I really cannot even imagine - wheter you may call that rude or \
dumb.



Ian and the DrKonqui bug:
---------------------------
> I think that people should read Ian's mail, with attention:
I have read Ian's mail and I do recall his review requests on DrKonqi.

I agree that the process was anything but fluid - though ultimately successful.

Apparently nobody actually felt in charge of DrKonqi then (and now, since Ian will \
apparently be sadly lost, again), so other developers, unfamiliar w/ DrKonqi \
commented on the patches - the first two of them actually focussing on OSX specific \
(or rather triggered) issues.


The last one addressed DrKonqi being broken due to bugzilla changes.

It was presented first on 30/9/2014, saw an immediate coding style and function \
design review, resolved 3/10/2014. Followed up by a minor nitpick to not use fprintf, \
but kdebug and a call for someone w/ experience on the codebase to review on \
5/10/2014

On 6/10/2014 Ian worried that he's perhaps "the person most familiar with the \
codebase of Dr Konqi, having worked on it for a few months now" and sugested to push \
the patch within the next 24h.

This raised immediate concerns from the release team about the size of the patch, \
discouraging to submit it to 4.14 what caused a hyperactive 7/10/2014 with the \
discussion leading to the consensus that a vastly simplified version of the patch \
would still be the best option for 4.14 (and suggestions on how to simplify things) \
with the result being finally presented 9/10/2014 and submitted and submitted "in \
time" 23h later.

I would fully agree that 7/10/2014 should have been 30/9/2014, but the most important \
thing is:

   IT TOOK A VETO FROM THE RELEASE TEAM 
            and thus
   THE THREAT OF A BROKEN DR KONQI FOR KDE SC4

to cause major interest in the patch, what is, given the DrKonqi bug was reported \
long before, a clear sign that nobody actually had a special interest. In the end, \
blind ppl. were supposed to guide the one-eyed.

     AND NO TOOL ON EARTH WILL EVER FIX SUCH A SITUATION.

Tools are as good or bad as the ppl. that use them. The problem is *not* that RB \
encourages nitpicks, but the problem is that there's completely unmaintained code \
where nobody feels qualified to sign off patches.

Ian is certainly the one person permitted to retire whenever he feels like, but \
/actually/, now that the worst time is passed, he would be the one to fix *this* \
problem for DrKonqi, ie. become the person to sign off patches.

Cheers,
Thomas


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