Hello fellow plasma devs!
Ping? Any info on there issues? I understand I'm not a core dev yet, so
probably not enough experience to talk about workflows and affect decisions,
but these are some really existing issues with the Gerrit system as used in
Qt development.
Bet regards,
Ignat Semenov
Hello,
On Saturday 17 March 2012 19:23:27 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Am I the only person who values browsable history? Repositories where you
> can run gitk and see something useful.
No, you can count me partly in. :-)
That said, you shouldn't make the issue worse than it really is. Part of that
is
On Friday 16 March 2012 21:31:11 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Sounds good.
> But OTOH, having one workflow for KDE frameworks (i.e. not even all of KDE
> SC) would be also a really good thing to have. It will make contributing
> easier.
That's pretty much Aaron's point yes. And I clearly see the va
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Friday 16 March 2012, Kevin Ottens wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wednesday 14 March 2012 14:38:19 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > this is what really piques my interest: merge based workflow.
>> >
>> > an integration branch would be fantastic. that branch should
On Friday 16 March 2012, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday 14 March 2012 14:38:19 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > [...]
> > this is what really piques my interest: merge based workflow.
> >
> > an integration branch would be fantastic. that branch should rebase
> > periodically off of maste
On Friday 16 March 2012 12:58:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2012 00:08:04 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > I've been thinking about the git workflow to be used in KDE Frameworks in
> > the future. Based on observations and discussions with current and future
> > frameworks maintainer, I th
On Friday, March 16, 2012 00:08:04 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> I've been thinking about the git workflow to be used in KDE Frameworks in
> the future. Based on observations and discussions with current and future
> frameworks maintainer, I think that it would be a mistake to force a single
> workflow for
Hello,
On Wednesday 14 March 2012 14:38:19 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> [...]
> this is what really piques my interest: merge based workflow.
>
> an integration branch would be fantastic. that branch should rebase
> periodically off of master and only be used to merge feature branches. this
> branch wo
On Friday, March 9, 2012 00:27:51 Alex Fiestas wrote:
> - Keep the 6 month release period
release periods and development periods are not the same thing. the release
period is, imho, uninteresting in these kinds of dicussions. we're discussing
development process, which is only marginally relate
Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Ignat Semenov
> wrote:
>> Hello fellow KDE devs!
>>
>> While I'm not an experienced developer nor manager, the planned
>> transition to gerrit really troubles me. In particular, I have the
>> following questions:
>>
>> 1)The gerrit installati
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Ignat Semenov wrote:
> Hello fellow KDE devs!
>
> While I'm not an experienced developer nor manager, the planned transition
> to gerrit really troubles me. In particular, I have the following questions:
>
> 1)The gerrit installation used in qt makes it impossible
Hello fellow KDE devs!
While I'm not an experienced developer nor manager, the planned transition
to gerrit really troubles me. In particular, I have the following questions:
1)The gerrit installation used in qt makes it impossible to add comments
other than directly to the diff. No way to add
>
> On each occasion the conclusion reached was that Gerrit would be
> difficult to maintain and would increase the complexity involved for
> pre-existing contributors.
>
On big/complex projects contributors are using branches instead of the
reviewboard,
because it is to difficult to keep track on
On Friday 09 March 2012, Alex Fiestas wrote:
> The resulting workflow if we take into account all of that is:
>
> - Keep the 6 month release period
> - Keep the current schedule (soft freeze, hard freeze...)
> - Move to a review based workflow before hard freeze (we need gerrit).
> - Once we are
Hello,
2012/3/9 Alex Fiestas :
> Hi there
>
> At Active sprint we've used a lunch break for talking about some
> "Workflow Issues" we find with the current way of using git in the
> workspace, just for mention a few discussed things from the top of m
> head:
>
> - People merge things not ready to
On 9 March 2012 01:27, Alex Fiestas wrote:
> - Move to a review based workflow before hard freeze (we need gerrit).
>
That's really great. We need gerrit and I hope that we will have it
available soon.
The usage of gerrit has some cons but eventually we have to use it.
Regards,
Giorgos
--
Gio
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Alex Fiestas wrote:
> Hi there
>
> At Active sprint we've used a lunch break for talking about some
> "Workflow Issues" we find with the current way of using git in the
> workspace, just for mention a few discussed things from the top of m
> head:
>
> - People merg
On Friday 09 March 2012 07:52:37 Luca Beltrame wrote:
> In data venerdì 09 marzo 2012 00:27:51, Alex Fiestas ha scritto:
> > - Move to a review based workflow before hard freeze (we need gerrit).
>
> Do you mean for the Workspace, or for the entirety of KDE? For both cases,
> what does sysadmin thi
In data venerdì 09 marzo 2012 00:27:51, Alex Fiestas ha scritto:
> - Move to a review based workflow before hard freeze (we need gerrit).
Do you mean for the Workspace, or for the entirety of KDE? For both cases,
what does sysadmin think?
--
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
KDE Science supporter
Hi there
At Active sprint we've used a lunch break for talking about some
"Workflow Issues" we find with the current way of using git in the
workspace, just for mention a few discussed things from the top of m
head:
- People merge things not ready to be merged (aka using git as we did svn)
- We d
20 matches
Mail list logo
