[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Fwd: Using MSH Paris Nord server

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Fwd: Using MSH Paris Nord server
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:48:52 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux)

John Mandereau <address@hidden> writes:

> 2012/7/30 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
>> I'm not convinced that this is an advantage.  I'd rather have one
>> central place to look for patches and their status (currently
>> google code, filtered by "has:Patch" and sorted based on patch
>> status[1]).  If "not bug fixes" patches aren't listed in the same
>> place as "bug fix" patches, then we'll have two websites to check
>> and keep up-to-date.
> I have never meant this.  I meant that if we decide to adopt Gerrit,
> then *all* pending patches will be on Gerrit, but patches that don't
> come from bug reports on Google Code tracker needn't be added there.
>> In short: we already have a global eye on submitted patches,
>> provided that people use git-cl.
> Gerrit can provide this as well, and might offer a better global eye
> than a generic issue tracker, be it an excellent one like Google Code.

There is no point arguing this.  We can't do a reasonable side-by-side
comparison and/or transition if we don't work with the same frontend.

The decision to change the frontend would be a rather invasive one, and
one can't use more than one frontend in parallel since the point of the
frontend is to provide a _complete_ overview over existing issues.

> We certainly agree on this as long as we use Rietveld for patches
> review, but if we find a better tool that provides a good frontend for
> patches review that can also integrate with Google code, then there's
> no reason to keep Google code as the frontend.

Again: wrong time to argue this.  One thing after the other.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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