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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: CI system maintainability
From:       Dominik Haumann <dhaumann () kde ! org>
Date:       2019-03-28 18:32:23
Message-ID: CALi_srDZhT_WYk72sbkcKSccAZLMPz5LB_QCB1i196oBcZdy2A () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Kevin Ottens <ervin@kde.org> schrieb am Do., 28. M=C3=A4rz 2019, 09:29:

> Hello,
>
> On Thursday, 28 March 2019 09:16:11 CET Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > Please note that the commits in this instance were pushed without
> > review, so restrictions on merge requests wouldn't make a difference
> > in this case unfortunately.
>
> Maybe it's about time to make reviews mandatory...


We could make it mandatory with a possible backdoor. Like if you have a
line in your commit log saying "I know what I am doing." then the commit
could be done without review. Of course this sounds like everyone could use
this backdoor always, but I doubt this would be the case.

Also, unreviewed commits could have a "[not reviewed]" suffix on
kde-commits@kde.org like the License additions so that it's easier to spot
unreviewed commits. We could even CC the author or respective mailing list
recommending that reviews should be done for future commits.

Just some thoughts :)

Greetings
Dominik


I know it's unpopular in
> KDE, and I advocated for "don't force a tool if you can get someone to
> look at
> your screen or pair with you" in the past. Clearly this compromise gets
> somewhat exploited and that's especially bad in the case of a fragile and
> central component like KDE PIM.
>
> Regards.
> --
> Kevin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">Kevin Ottens &lt;<a \
href="mailto:ervin@kde.org">ervin@kde.org</a>&gt; schrieb am Do., 28. März 2019, \
09:29:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br> <br>
On Thursday, 28 March 2019 09:16:11 CET Ben Cooksley wrote:<br>
&gt; Please note that the commits in this instance were pushed without<br>
&gt; review, so restrictions on merge requests wouldn&#39;t make a difference<br>
&gt; in this case unfortunately.<br>
<br>
Maybe it&#39;s about time to make reviews mandatory... </blockquote></div></div><div \
dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We could make it mandatory with a possible \
backdoor. Like if you have a line in your commit log saying &quot;I know what I am \
doing.&quot; then the commit could be done without review. Of course this sounds like \
everyone could use this backdoor always, but I doubt this would be the \
case.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Also, unreviewed commits could \
have a &quot;[not reviewed]&quot; suffix on <a \
href="mailto:kde-commits@kde.org">kde-commits@kde.org</a> like the License additions \
so that it&#39;s easier to spot unreviewed commits. We could even CC the author or \
respective mailing list recommending that reviews should be done for future \
commits.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Just some thoughts \
:)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Greetings</div><div \
dir="auto">Dominik</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div \
dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 \
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I know it&#39;s unpopular in <br> \
KDE, and I advocated for &quot;don&#39;t force a tool if you can get someone to look \
at <br> your screen or pair with you&quot; in the past. Clearly this compromise gets \
<br> somewhat exploited and that&#39;s especially bad in the case of a fragile and \
<br> central component like KDE PIM.<br>
<br>
Regards.<br>
-- <br>
Kevin Ottens, <a href="http://ervin.ipsquad.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" \
target="_blank">http://ervin.ipsquad.net</a><br> </blockquote></div></div></div>



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