| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 10:14:14AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03.07.2015 22:22, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > (Breaking the thread, because I believe this topic needs further |
| 4 |
> > discussion). |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 03:39:31PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> Are there still any plans to use a code review system like gerrit that |
| 8 |
> >> will avoid merges, rebases etc. to the tree by just accepting and |
| 9 |
> >> serializing patches? |
| 10 |
> > Merges are a fact of life, they will be happening. |
| 11 |
> > This was included on: |
| 12 |
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Rebases of already published commits must be avoided. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > But beyond that, the general discussion was that a code review system |
| 17 |
> > was not in the immediate future... |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > If the merge workflow becomes too problematic due to the high rate of |
| 20 |
> > change, then we can revisit those systems, to take advantage of their |
| 21 |
> > auto-merging functionality, but probably only in combination with the QA |
| 22 |
> > testsuites. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Using a Code Review System and allowing direct commits are not mutually |
| 26 |
> exclusive. |
| 27 |
> If infra has got time to set it up, this could be an option in addition |
| 28 |
> to direct commits for developers and we could make it obligatory (e.g. |
| 29 |
> for the first month) for new developers. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> It would also allow proxied maintainers to commit to the tree more |
| 32 |
> easily, as it will require just an additional ack by the proxy maintainer. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If we do add a code review system, it should be fully accessible from |
| 35 |
the command line. Pybugz is almost there for bugzilla; the only thing it |
| 36 |
lacks is the ability to reply to specific comments. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
William |
Archives