[Development] Contributing to the Qt Project behind a hefty firewall and proxy server

[marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com]

Ok, you guys just misunderstand each other.

Thiago says we should do it, to ensure that the Qt Project is accessible 
behind badly configured corporate firewalls.

He also says that you should at the same time have a discussion with 
Corporate Security to make them understand that the current situation is 
hurting the organization, and try to get it changed so you _don't_ have 
to circumvent Corporate Security. (Normally it's grounds for getting the 
"pink slip" immediately.)

So, I think we'll go ahead and get a port forward setup.

-- 
.marius



On 13/07/2012 08:52, ext Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> I think we should try that. However, note that this could be a violation of
>> the terms of use of that corporate network since the traffic is not web.
>
> Not necessarily, no. The Qt Project would not be in charge of such
> decisions, anyway. Nothing to violate in the Qt project itself, so is
> this not a violation in the aforementioned examples: github, KDE, and
> so forth.
>
>> Circumventing the protection is not a good idea.
>
> It indeed is, if it is done for good. It is like when you have a
> sanity bot when it defends against the most cases, but makes zero
> sense in certain. One will send patches to the mailing list, and
> someone else will go through gerrit?
>
>> So I also think that the IT departments of those companies need to do their
>> job. If there's a legitimate reason for a developer working behind the
>> corporate firewall to contribute to Qt, then this developer should use the Qt
>> methods and simply get their IT people to provide an approved and supported
>> way of doing so.
>
> Qt methods could help the people better instead of blocking the new
> contributions. Also, changing very old company policies, for instance
> as a new employer, is just almost impossible even if your project
> depends on Qt, and you fix an upstream issue needed for your project
> (or implement a new feature). Not upstreaming that could actually be a
> violation against the Qt Project, so what? Keep sending attached
> patches to the mailing list?
>
>> IT is a supporting organisation, they are there need to make sure that the
>> other functions can do their jobs and that the integrity of the network is
>> maintained. They are not there to dictate how those other functions should do
>> their jobs.
>> So I suggest that each developer behind such a firewall open an IT ticket and
>> request a proxy to reach ports 9418 and 29418. If necessary, escalate to the
>> managers and and stop working when the firewall prevents work from getting
>> done.
>
> Are you serious? You have worked in a big company, so you do know that
> such changes can be /very/ long, if it gets through at all. Many
> supervisors would just say, attach a patch please to the mailing list
> (if they do not have other opportunities over 80 and 443) since it is
> simpler than changing the company policies upside down, so they do not
> stress.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laszlo Papp
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>