Re: Fwd: Using MSH Paris Nord server

[John Mandereau]

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.


> Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against switching the "backend"
> from rietveld to gerrit.  I just want to keep the google code
> "frontend".

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.


> Ok.  I just want to emphasize that you could easily spend 20 hours
> setting this up, but then have the response be "no, we prefer the
> old system".

I've already evaluated this, so I don't mind :-)

John