[Development] Importing sahumada: Can you import http://gitorious.org/qserialdevice/qserialdevice (the 2.0 branch) into playground/QtSerialPort

Denis Shienkov scapig2 at yandex.ru
Sat Feb 11 18:28:56 CET 2012

Hi all.

I prepared for the first QtSerialPort review.
But then I do not know what to do: 
Who will review my changes? Who will do the audit?
Someone, please check the code, because I still have not figured much in the features by: 

Best regards,

09.02.2012, 23:46, marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com:
> On 09/02/2012 13:26, ext Denis Shienkov wrote:
>>  Hi Marius.
>>  I have a few more questions (or offers):
>>  1) Perhaps, instead of:
>>>  ...
>>>  and start pushing to refs/for/2.0 to the Gerrit repo.
>>>  ...
>>  done refs/for/master? Because for the main branch is gerrit master,
>>  and not 2.0 (or am I misunderstanding something?).
> Sure, whatever you prefer. Gitorious' 2.0 branch was pushed to both 2.0
> and master, since Gerrit requires a 'master' branch. We didn't import
> the Gitorious master branch, since I think you only rebased the 2.0
> branch to avoid the commits without CLA signoff.
> How you proceed, with commits in the master or 2.0 branch is up to you
> as the maintainer.
>>  2) It may be worth in the current repository QSerialDevice Gitorious
>>  marked as deprecated (well, or something like that), and instead it
>>  create a new one with a new name (ex. QtSerialPort), etc. The reason
>>  is that QSerialDevice will not reflect the inner essence, after
>>  integration, and will mislead the majority of public users.
> Sure, I agree it's probably cleaner to do that. (Our internal sync
> script also infact requires the repositories to be named the same in
> Gerrit and in Gitorious.)
>>  3) Let us define - what the class name give, with prefix Qt, Q or no
>>  prefix? I looked at some of the projects Gerrit without CI (eg
>>  qtprocessmanager, qtjsonstream) and found that a all class names
>>  without the prefix. I also stick to this style?
> See
> http://wiki.qt-project.org/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Using_the_module_name_in_application_code_and_documentation
>      "For Qt Add-On Modules, a C++ namespace is required to avoid class
>      naming clashes with other modules in the public API. For the "Qt
>      Foo" module the namespace would be QtFoo. Exception: in order to
>      keep source compatibility with Qt 4, no namespace is required for
>      former Qt 4 modules. When naming classes, the best practice is use
>      simple non-prefixed class names within the C++ name space. Naming
>      classes of add-ons like QMyClass is also OK."
>>  4) In the header of each source file, keep a reference to the
>>  original authors, like me, or mention only Nokia?
> Nokia did not develop the code, and must not be referenced as the
> author. Copyright remains with the author.
>>  5) How to make an example of the structure of the project is the
>>  addon for QtSerialPort (in order to make the image and likeness),
>>  from any Addon-project? Or maybe there is a specific example of a
>>  good where to get the project structure for addon?
> http://wiki.qt-project.org/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#The_structure_of_a_new_module_repository
> --
> .marius
>> 08.02.2012, 22:08, marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com:
>>> On 2/8/12 11:59 AM, "ext Denis Shienkov"<scapig2 at yandex.ru>  wrote:
>>>> Hi Marius.
>>>> I do not understand this bit:
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> For the other Qt repos we treat the Gitorious repo as "public" repo, so
>>>> most people will clone from there. Then we regularly push from Gerrit to
>>>> Gitorious to keep them in sync. However, we disable Merge Requests in
>>>> Gitorious, since we want to force all contributions through the Gerrit
>>>> system.
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> ie I and other "special/selected" developers will commits/push to Gerrit,
>>>> and then tested and approved by the pieces of code will be sent to
>>>> Gitorious?
>>> Well, not more "special" than having a Jira/Gerrit account with an
>>> accepted CLA agreement :)
>>> For the Qt Essential modules we have a script which automatically pushes
>>> the latest changes to the Gitorious location. And we prefer most people to
>>> use those as the primary clone location, since it offloads much of the
>>> resource requirements from the Qt-Project infrastructure.
>>>> What then will be a public repo address on Gitorious for get/clone other
>>>> people a code libraries?
>>> It's up to you really. If you don't want to mirror it to Gitorious on a
>>> regular basis, you can just use the Gerrit repo as the primary location,
>>> though I think people will need a Jira/Gerrit account to do so? Sergio,
>>> can you please confirm or deny that?
>>> My recommendation: Keep your Gitorious repo as the "primary" source, and
>>> push the 2.0 branch from Gerrit to Gitorious whenever you feel it's stable
>>> enough. Then add a notice on the Gitorious project that all development is
>>> done at codereview.qt-project.org, and that Merge Requests in Gitorious is
>>> therefore disabled.
>>> For Qt Essentials, the init-repository script in qt5.git makes the
>>> Gitorious repos the 'origin', while Gerrit is the 'gerrit' remotes.
>>> --
>>> .marius
>>>> 08.02.2012, 21:37, marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com:
>>>>> You may now disable/stop using the Gitorious repo, and clone from
>>>>> Gerrit,
>>>>> and start pushing to refs/for/2.0 to the Gerrit repo. Then those will
>>>>> show
>>>>> up as review tasks for the 2.0 branch in Gerrit, and you can review it
>>>>> there.
>>>>> Basically, you may now use the Gerrit version as the main repository.
>>>>> For the other Qt repos we treat the Gitorious repo as "public" repo, so
>>>>> most people will clone from there. Then we regularly push from Gerrit to
>>>>> Gitorious to keep them in sync. However, we disable Merge Requests in
>>>>> Gitorious, since we want to force all contributions through the Gerrit
>>>>> system.
>>>>> --
>>>>> .marius
>>>>> On 2/8/12 11:34 AM, "ext Denis Shienkov"<scapig2 at yandex.ru>  wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Marius.
>>>>>> Yes, everything seems fine.
>>>>>> I tried to clone the repository:
>>>>>> # git clone
>>>>>> ssh://codereview.qt-project.org:29418/playground/qtserialport.git
>>>>>> and received the 2.0 branch files.
>>>>>> What are is now further action on my part and yours? ie what's next?
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>> 08.02.2012, 18:37, marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com:
>>>>>>> Great, thanks.
>>>>>>> Denis, let us know if everything looks good on your side.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sent from my Nokia N9On 2/8/12 8:02 Ahumada Sergio (Nokia-MP/Oslo)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/08/2012 02:57 PM, Storm-Olsen Marius (Nokia-MP/Austin) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually, the master branch has not been rebased to remove the
>>>>>>>> commits
>>>>>>>> which has no CLA, so we need to remove that branch. Perhaps just make
>>>>>>>> the 2.0 branch t the master as well.
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> Done .. 2.0 from Gitorious is now master in Gerrit
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sergio Ahumada
>>>>>>> Mobile Phones Middleware - Quality Engineering
>>>>>>> http://wikis.in.nokia.com/QtQualityEngineering

More information about the Development mailing list