[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rietveld review

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Rietveld review
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 12:29:41 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Dienstag, 4. Mai 2010 10:51:05 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Contained patch sets can be reasonably well exchanged by mail/mailing
>> list.
> My experience with this is that patches sent by mail will be forgotten the 
> next day. So, either you are lucky to get a response on the first day, or you 
> will never... I definitely prefer a reviewboard like rietvield (in KDE Pim we 
> also have our own reviewboard, which works a bit differently, but just as 
> well).

Where is the difference?  Without mailing reminders with the review URL,
you'll be in the same situation.

> I have not eperienced the problems you are complaining about. In
> particular, my patch for AJAX search in the docs was created 13 months
> ago, and recently rebased/updated to current
> master. ( )

404 Not Found

So I can't comment on that.

> Of course, updating the patch to current master took some time,
> because the whole documentation file tree was completely
> overhauled. But you'll have that problem in all cases, no matter
> whether you use rietvield, or patches sent via mail...

Sure, but you are the only one who can hope to do this job reasonably.
Anybody who downloads the patch from Rietveld does not have the version
history git uses for that.  So people are dependent on you to provide a
patch suitable for _their_ current version.

> Plus, a simple "git-cl upload origin/master" after the rebase is just
> soo much easier than generating patch files and attaching them to
> mails.


git format-patch origin/master
git send-email 00*

is not "soo much" more difficult.  I think this is a matter of knowing
your tools.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]