Question regarding two 8 months old RRs

[Marko Käning]

Hi devs,

the RRs [1,2] wrt face tags in XMP metadata are marked as "Ship it!”...

Are they incorporated in digiKam’s code base or not yet?

Or, were the RRs simply forgotten to be set as submitted, perhaps?

Greets,
Marko


[1] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109453/
[2] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109087/
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Veaceslav Munteanu-2]

They are already incorporated... long time ago...

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Marko Käning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> the RRs [1,2] wrt face tags in XMP metadata are marked as "Ship it!”...
>
> Are they incorporated in digiKam’s code base or not yet?
>
> Or, were the RRs simply forgotten to be set as submitted, perhaps?
>
> Greets,
> Marko
>
>
> [1] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109453/
> [2] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109087/
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Marko Käning]

On 17 Mar 2015, at 19:41 , Veaceslav Munteanu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> They are already incorporated... long time ago...

They should be closed then by the patch committer. :)
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Teemu Rytilahti]

Marko Käning wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2015, at 19:41 , Veaceslav Munteanu
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> They are already incorporated... long time ago...
>
> They should be closed then by the patch committer. :)

We are not using reviewboard that exhaustively, actually preferring not to
use it. But wanted to just say, that when incorporating patches from there
anyway, the commiter should add "REVIEW:<number>" to the commit message.
That way it gets automatically marked as commited.

--
Best Regards,
Teemu Rytilahti


_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Exactly.

Why to use 2 toos where one is enough. Bugzilla do the stuff to host
patches to review. I don't see advantage to use RB instead Bugzilla
for that.

Also, Bugzilla is the core life of the project. All main idea and
report are done into bugzilla. The Agile project management don by
digiKam team is driven around bugzilla.

In other words, RB break the rules instead to help.

Instead to have a separated tool as RB, i would to see improvement in
bugzilla as well to review patches, for ex to see differences directly
in web interface using color annotations...

 Gilles Caulier

2015-04-05 2:46 GMT+02:00 Teemu Rytilahti <[hidden email]>:

> Marko Käning wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2015, at 19:41 , Veaceslav Munteanu
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> They are already incorporated... long time ago...
>>
>> They should be closed then by the patch committer. :)
>
> We are not using reviewboard that exhaustively, actually preferring not to
> use it. But wanted to just say, that when incorporating patches from there
> anyway, the commiter should add "REVIEW:<number>" to the commit message.
> That way it gets automatically marked as commited.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Teemu Rytilahti
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Marko Käning]

Hi Gilles,

On 05 Apr 2015, at 09:39 , Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why to use 2 toos where one is enough. Bugzilla do the stuff to host
> patches to review. I don't see advantage to use RB instead Bugzilla
> for that.

there is an advantage in RB’s ease of use for reviewing. :)


> In other words, RB break the rules instead to help.

Does it, really? I think it could be seen as a nice addition, perhaps, no?

Anyway, the two RRs are now marked as submitted, thanks.

Greets,
Marko
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2015-04-11 2:05 GMT+02:00 Marko Käning <[hidden email]>:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> On 05 Apr 2015, at 09:39 , Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Why to use 2 toos where one is enough. Bugzilla do the stuff to host
>> patches to review. I don't see advantage to use RB instead Bugzilla
>> for that.
>
> there is an advantage in RB’s ease of use for reviewing. :)

For developers who want to review, no. A patch attached to bugzilla
entry is enough.

>
>
>> In other words, RB break the rules instead to help.
>
> Does it, really? I think it could be seen as a nice addition, perhaps, no?

No. 2 tools to manage want mean more time to pass to use it. All must
be hosted in the same tool.

Don't forget : opensource is done on free time... and time is
PRECIOUS. So no time to lost in this world...

Gilles Caulier

>
> Anyway, the two RRs are now marked as submitted, thanks.
>
> Greets,
> Marko
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Marko Käning]

Hi Gilles,

On 11 Apr 2015, at 07:46 , Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2015-04-11 2:05 GMT+02:00 Marko Käning <[hidden email]>:
>> there is an advantage in RB’s ease of use for reviewing. :)
>
> For developers who want to review, no. A patch attached to bugzilla
> entry is enough.

my pronunciation was on “ease of use”, which you agreed to that bugzilla is lacking that. :)


> No. 2 tools to manage want mean more time to pass to use it. All must
> be hosted in the same tool.

Yes, in an ideal world it would be so! ;-)


> Don't forget : opensource is done on free time... and time is
> PRECIOUS. So no time to lost in this world…

Who do you tell.

Greets,
Marko
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel