On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 20:02:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 18.49:24 Kevin Ottens wrote: > > > As it stands with plasma-framework in particular, there is now a > > > difference > > > in workflow depending on what *part* of plasma one is working on > > > (framework > > > or workspace). So not only is it now different from the majority of > > > frameworks, it is also "different from itself". > > > > It was focused on KF5, but if Plasma people feel like having all the > > related repositories part of the experiment they could decide it but... > > That would honestly make more sense for Plasma imho, though it still would > make sense to start small and consistent. > > > People at the meeting picked those two because it was deemed desirable to > > avoid using something small or not too active to find the pain points. I > > think it makes sense. For something which seldom get patches it's unlikely > > we'll have enough information for later decision. > > [...] > > > ... the experiment is not about Gerrit vs Gitolite + ReviewBoard. It is > > Gerrit in addition to Gitolite + ReviewBoard. In that sense it is very > > different from the earlier GitLab experiment. Also it is completely opt-in > > for developers when they submit patches. > > Which makes it more chaotic / less predictable. I'm failing to understand > how that's desirable.
Same here. Having two different patch review systems for one project... I mean, this is surely not a good idea. Two places to send patches, to places to review patches, two different user interfaces, maybe logins, ... Alex
