Web lists-archives.com

Re: CI system maintainability




Hello,

On Friday, 29 March 2019 09:43:44 CET Volker Krause wrote:
> On Friday, 29 March 2019 08:59:59 CET Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 March 2019 21:53:06 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > Having mandatory reviews for a central and complex component like
> > > akonadi
> > > looks like a very good and obvious idea.
> > 
> > Yep.
> 
> Looking at the 18.12 -> 19.04 timeframe the majority of changes to Akonadi
> went through pre-commit review, even more so if you discard commits doing
> release work (version bumps etc) or similar maintenance not touching the
> actual logic.
> 
> And specifically the changes that caused us the most headaches due to
> introducing a nasty regression went through review.
> 
> Sure, nothing is perfect, but I don't think code review in Akonadi is the
> most pressing issue here.

Fair enough. I was thinking more PIM in general though than Akonadi in 
particular.
 
> > > OTOH if there is only one developer who is really expert for akonadi,
> > > this makes it kind of unfeasible.
> > 
> > That's the chicken and egg problem we're in concerning KDEPIM. The
> > developer story is frankly really harder than most software out there
> > which makes it unlikely for people to pick it over something else for
> > contributions. That's in part tied to your next point below and partly
> > tied to
> > documentation, on- boarding etc. The unwillingness to be slowed down is
> > getting in the way of fixing that situation: to be a desirable project to
> > contribute to you need to spend time advocating, documenting and taking
> > newbies by the hand until they become regular contributors.
> > 
> > Yes it's tough, and TBH I'm guilty of not doing this more on my own
> > projects. But on such a strategic piece of software like KDEPIM there's
> > some responsibility in carrying those duties for the well being of the
> > project.
> 
> How to address the issue of bus factor ~1 components in PIM is the real
> question here, I completely agree. But this is getting way off topic from
> Ben's original issue, and for the wide range of recipients.

Yes, I realized only too late that I kind of hijacked the thread somehow. I 
apologies about that.

> Also, I don't think overly generic statements on that help us much, so maybe
> let's discuss concrete steps for this at the sprint next week?

Definitely. It's in part because I know the sprint is coming that I started to 
wave that particular flag. :-)

I wish Laurent was there though, it'll make that particular discussion harder 
to conclude without him...

Regards.
-- 
Kevin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.