[ANN] Please use Gerrit from now on for Patch Review

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

Hi Pierre-André!

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:08:46PM +0200, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
> I push to gerrit and let tinderbox run. In case of success I get ? a
> +1 of each tinderbox ? How do I know it passes with success.

a tinderbox would give you a +1verified, which means that it builds (and passes
whatever kind of tests that kind of tinderbox is gracious enough to do).

IMHO for LibreOffice we should use "verified" as meaning "couldnt find anything
evil by blackbox testing".

A tinderbox can never do "+1codereview" as a tinderbox doesnt understand code,
but it can blackbox test it (does it still compile and pass tests).

Btw, gerrit in theory allows more "labels" than "codereview" and "verified", so
we could have a "codebeauty" label or something -- and ignore it. Lets just
start with the default and only make things more complex when we really need
it.


IMHO, we should not use verified as "fixes the bug it claims to fix" -- thats
what bugzilla is for.

> Once tinderbox is successful, since my change is small or I am
> confident with, I put a +2 to my patch, which means this will insert
> automatically it to master. So I will be able to positive review my
> own patch ?

Yes. I did so already.

> 2. If I have several patches, that need to be together, how should I
> proceed with pushing them together to gerrit ? (If I want to have
> three patches in the same review ID from gerrit) ?

Yes. They will depend on each other and gerrit will make sure the second does
not get pushed before the first etc.

> [ADMIN]
> 1. I followed the asked process of setting up an account, etc..
> mailed to Norbert so he can match my fd.o account to gerrit. Well,
> how may I now see that I actually have / will have commit access to
> gerrit repo ?

I guess only admins can see that directly from the gerrit UI. But we can
publish the list a week before we make the final switch so everyone can check
himself and will ping those missing directly.

> 2. When my ssh key expires, it is enough to just change it into my
> gerrit account ?

I dont know why that wouldnt be sufficient, I have not tested though ;)
 
> 3. May be a stupid remark, but why do not use this way (opening
> gerrit account ) then to ask for license stuff ? You would have to
> ack to be able to open account, or to load patches. This would ease,
> ensure the process towards this goal ?

Gerrit has already some git hooks that way of making sure a CLA was signed.
Although we dont need a CLA we indeed can use that to get rid of manual
license statements. That would need some research, setup and tweaking, but
might be well worth it in the end. So yeah, if you want to contribute some
research on how those setups work it would be welcome.

Thanks for the feedback!

Best,

Bjoern