Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:13:04 -0400
On 06/28/13 10:57, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/28/2013 07:21 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:On 06/22/13 06:47, Bálint Réczey wrote:Hi All, 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc () petit-huguenin org>:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote:On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc () petit-huguenin org> wrote:On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote:Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g. Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what Github offers.Yes, Gerrit is better than github:Presumably you mean "Gerrit plus a private repository is better than github", as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software that works with a Git repository.Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit without a least one repository would be a very boring application.:-) I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow . Please check it and share your opinion.It would probably be good to include how/where patch submitters would attach other attachments (e.g., sample captures) that go along with their patch (I spent a little time going through the Gerrit docs and didn't find anything like that). (A large portion of the patches we accept need to have a corresponding test capture file before anyone will accept it.)Gerrit does not replace the bug tracker, in fact it complements it, so the attachments would still be stored in the bug - unless they are used for something useful for the build, like regression testing, in which case they would be part of the patchset.
Ah, OK, I was somehow under the impression that if patches went into Gerrit then no bug was going to be raised.
Hmm, having to track both a bug and a Gerrit change for most of our patches sounds much less pleasant than I had been thinking...
(OTOH having the computer automatically reject patches that don't pass the check* scripts or compile on all platforms sounds wonderful...)
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13), (continued)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Bálint Réczey (Jun 24)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Michael Tuexen (Jun 24)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Bálint Réczey (Jun 24)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Anders Broman (Jun 24)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Michael Tuexen (Jun 24)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Bálint Réczey (Jun 25)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Bálint Réczey (Jun 27)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Marc Petit-Huguenin (Jun 28)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Marc Petit-Huguenin (Jun 28)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow Jeff Morriss (Jun 28)
- Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13) Bálint Réczey (Jun 28)