Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow
From: Jeff Morriss <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>:
-----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
<[email protected]> 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...)