From koffice-devel Thu Feb 11 11:55:11 2010 From: Elvis Stansvik Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:55:11 +0000 To: koffice-devel Subject: Re: Review Request: RDF support for KWord. Message-Id: <751a4f871002110355h2fec142cn781b669eb571e987 () mail ! gmail ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=koffice-devel&m=126588935701328 2010/2/11 Jos van den Oever : > On Thursday 11 February 2010 12:38:54 Elvis Stansvik wrote: >> 2010/2/11 Jos van den Oever : >> > On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:25:29 Thomas Zander wrote: >> >> I'm fine with that approach. >> >> >> >> Thinking ahead, it would be good to avoid a lot of revisions in the >> >> future by asking for feedback and approach *much* earlier in the >> >> development cycle (the first patch was already huge). >> >> I found an actual bug in this review cycle, one that we should have >> >> caught earlier and probably would have if we had a smoother way of >> >> reviewing. I still think that reviews are valuable, and we should >> >> continue to do that. Lets try to work on the process to make it more >> >> smooth for future versions. >> >> >> >> > As to the missing files, not sure what is up with them, but i'll vough >> >> > for >> >> > >> >> >  the  quality. >> >> >> >> Its not vouching for quality, that kind of misses the point :) >> >> Its about catching bugs early by having more people look at it. Its >> >> about having an easier transfer of knowledge to more people in the >> >> group. Which in itself is about sharing maintainership. >> >> >> >> But, yes, Jos, agreed, we've had 9 patch revisions, lets stop torturing >> >> Ben and just aim for better approach next time. >> > >> > Yes, also when to use or not use reviewboard is not formalized. For new >> > commtters it is expected and for large changes too. However for large >> > changes the reviewboard does not work well, as shown by this long review >> > instance. >> > >> > Once we switch to git, all of this should become much easier and at that >> > point we can think about formalizing the reviewing some more. >> >> Sorry for a bit of a thread hijack, but I've been thinking about this; >> when we move to git, I guess we will still use reviewboard? If so, >> does anyone know if the latest version of reviewboard will eat git >> diffs? If it does (and I think so), maybe we should bug whoever runs >> reviewboard.kde.org to upgrade? Because it still won't accept git >> diffs right? > > Gitorious has a way to request merges from branches that allows comments. > When there are comments you change your branch and ask again. The revision > history of the branch is also visible there. > > It works by doing a clone and then asking a merge. Here's an example: > http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/merge_requests/1623 > >    *  Requested by:  avatar   Jos van den Oever >    * Status: Merged >    * Source repository: vandenoevers-clone:qtextformatpatch >    * Target repository: qt:master >    * Created at: September 26th, 2009 15:05 > > It lists the commits in the cloned branch that would be merged as well as the > comments and the revisions. Great! Elvis > > Cheers, > Jos > > > -- > Jos van den Oever, software architect > +49 391 25 19 15 53 > http://kogmbh.com/legal/ > _______________________________________________ > koffice-devel mailing list > koffice-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel > _______________________________________________ koffice-devel mailing list koffice-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel