[Mageia-sysadm] [186] Add review board to isntall

Sun Nov 7 15:29:06 CET 2010

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 09:40:19AM +0100, Dexter Morgan wrote:
+> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Michael scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+> > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:31:35PM +0100, root at mageia.org wrote:
+> >> Revision: 186
+> >> Author:   dmorgan
+> >> Date:     2010-11-06 21:31:35 +0100 (Sat, 06 Nov 2010)
+> >> Log Message:
+> >> -----------
+> >> Add review board to isntall
+> >
+> > who asked for it ?
+> > i do not think this was discussed, and given the current type of
+> > contribution we have, I am not sure it will be suiable. At least,
+> > I think this should first be discussed with packager, no ( and also
+> > with sysadmin if we find it suitable, maintainable, etc )
+> 
+> i addedd it to not forgot, but reviewboard is something we _must_ have
+> to allow more contribution to our own projects, tools, code, ...
+> This is much better to use this than sending a patch on bugzilla.
+
+A tool do not replace a process. If there is no one to do code review,
+the tool will not be used. We cannot dictate "now, we do code review" without 
+discussing with others involved persons first ( ie, coders, maybe mackagers ).
+Maybe they would prefer a different way of doing it ( like email, like doing it on irc,
+like doing it like postgresql ). If we want to empower the community as a whole, 
+the community must do its own choices.
+
+I do think code review is a good idea. And I do like reviewboard, don't get me wrong.
+But before installing it and using it, others peoples must see how it can be useful, 
+how it work, etc.
+
+This also mean to agree on procedure, ie, do we let people propose patch on bugzilla ?
+Who can review ? Who has the final word to say ? 
+
+Ie, the tool must be derivated by the workflow, not the reverse. So first a workflow 
+must be found, IMHO. 
+
+And all of this requires to have the team in place, and to have someone involved
+into trying to convince people of using best practices. Even if we will 
+likely be right in the end, what is needed is that procedure like this are feel
+welcomed by contributers, rather than imposed. This is indeed a more lengthy process, yes
+and this is frustrating, yes. And this also may end differently that what we would
+want, yes. 
+
+> 
+> what do you mean suitable ?
+> Projects like kde use it since a long time so they have already tested
+> and we would know if there were any maintainance issue
+
+Well, transifex is also used since a long time by other projects ( Fedora for
+example ), and no one raised the maintenace issues here afaik, 
+despites them being know ( at least in the pre 1.0 version ). 
+
+We also need to check if it support ldap and others things : 
+- users in ldap, 
+- dynamic acls based on ldap, ( ie, let all people in the sysadm team review patch for sysadm )
+- a non webbased config (for puppet integration, or we would lose auditing and the advantage of vcs ).
+
+1 seems ok. 2 and 3, rather not :/ 
+
+( and this make me think this may not be the case for transifex etheir, and that we 
+should have checked ). 
+-- 
+Michael scherer
+