[Development] Patches in JIRA (Was: (no subject))
davemateerwork at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 17:43:08 CET 2011
Thanks, Marius, et al ...
I didn't intend my post to take a defensive tone. Again, I *really*
appreciate the framework and all the people working on it; Qt is
top-notch! It just seemed like there was some discussion on these
things and thought it might be helpful to have an outsider position.
Maybe I just misinterpreted the current atmosphere!
I think my challenges were that it was not entirely clear to me
*where* the problems I was having were. In other words, it was not
clear to me that the build documentation was incorrect until after I
had already spent several hours trying to build with those
instructions. And now I am seeing through the discussion list that
maybe Mac OS X building is just broken at the moment. So a lot of my
delays may just be choosing an unfortunate time to start trying to
give back to the community! :-) I'm sure once everything is ironed out
the process will be much simpler, just as your post suggests.
No, I'm not using Qt5 in production. I'm just trying to follow the
instructions of fixing in Qt5 first, then cherry-picking back into
Qt4.x. We're using 4.7.4 as our base.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM, <marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com> wrote:
> On 21/12/2011 07:23, ext Dave Mateer wrote:
>> I don't know that my opinion matters much, as I'm just new on the
>> list. But I will confirm that the challenges below (and that others
>> have mentioned recently on this group) are very much the situation I
>> find myself in. I have about five patches I would like to submit for
>> bugs in JIRA, mostly priority 3 stuff. But I have already lost two
>> full days fighting Git and Gerrit and building Qt5. Some of the
>> instructions online are confusing or outdated. I understand that this
>> is still transitional and early, and many of those growing pains will
>> be resolved. And I have been nothing but impressed with the dedication
>> and commitment to excellence that the Qt team exhibits.
>> Nonetheless, if I could just submit my patches to something like JIRA
>> or hand them off to a "sponsor" of sorts that already has his
>> Git/Gerrit area configured and knows the idiosyncrasies of building
>> Qt5, that would make me much more inclined to contribute. As it is,
>> I'd like to just give up, but I feel like my acceptance of the LGPL
>> terms constrains me to at least keep trying a few more days. (We are
>> already using these patches in our production code.)
>> Again, not sure it matters much, but there is at least one case study
>> from someone on the "outside." :-)
> First of all, I hope you are not using Qt 5 in production code yet! ;)
> Second, if the wikis are unclear, you can help fix them (they are wikis
> after all), or even send the issues to this mailing list and someone
> else will likely fix them. Yes, the wikis are relatively new, so there
> are bound to be kinks which needs ironing out.
> On to how to push your patches. It's really not *that* hard. If we
> ignore the time it takes to clone Qt 5, it should be fairly quick to set
> up and push the initial patches.
> Only once:
> 1) Create a Jira/Gerrit users
> 2) Ensure the following in your <HOME>/.ssh/config:
> Host codereview.qt-project.org
> Port 29418
> User <gerrit user>
> 3) git clone git://gitorious.org/qt/qt5.git
> 4) cd qt5 && perl init-repository --codereview-username <gerrit user>
> For each contribution:
> 5) cd <module>
> 6) <...do patch stuff...>
> 7) git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/master
> And then you are done. Not too bad?
> And you only do steps 1-4 once, when you start contributing. After that,
> you only have to do 3 steps to put it straight into reach of the master
> code line. Getting it accepted and integrated only takes a few clicks
> for someone with the proper rights. Easy!
> If you continue to contribute patches as attachments to Jira tasks,
> someone else would have to spend valuable time to continue to download
> the patches, apply them into a clean branch, and push them; moving much
> of the load over to someone else, which is obviously sub-optimal for the
> community as a whole.
> (Yes, I took out the compilation step; you'd want to do that too, but if
> we are talking production code, I assume you've already compiled it
> before. If you need to do new revisions, of course you'd have to compile
> it first before you push again ;) )
More information about the Development