[Qt-creator] [Dev] Qt Creator Submit Policies

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On 11/04/11 08:32, ext eike.ziller at nokia.com wrote:
> I basically see these possible ways to create separate "branches":
>
> 1) A real git branch in gerrit's qt-creator/qt-creator
> That would be beside the master&  release branches. *Everyone* pulling Qt Creator automatically pulls these too, so I'd say they must be very limited. Or perhaps we shouldn't use them at all for "topic branches". If we do use them, we need some sort of policy *what* may be there, and I'd say a maintainer must agree.
>
what's wrong with everyone pulling the branches?

> 2) Gerrit project, qt-creator/*
> I suppose it would be possible to create separate (sub-)projects on gerrit, e.g. qt-creator/scriptplugin or something like that. Since these are really separate git repositories they don't affect people who pull qt-creator/qt-creator. Would be a bit similar to gitorious' repository clones. We should probably still have some sort of creation policy, and maybe also when they'll be removed again. But this could be handled with less restrictions than 1)
>
i don't want that. the gerrit gui is utterly unsuitable for managing it.

i want to enable private namespaces in gerrit where people could push 
their own stuff to and to optionally have proper gerrit reviews. if we 
go really overboard, the (to be implemented) early warning system could 
be invited for compile/test trial runs. the namespace would be 
refs/personal/<user>/* in the project's mainline repository, so everyone 
could optionally pull it by explicitly specifying the refs. i need to 
think of some kind of "expiration policy" to avoid too many dead branches.

> 3) gitorious clone or clone whereever.
> Has the advantage of no restriction or policies, but the disadvantages of a) missing discoverability, and b) the "CLA requires you to use a feature branch on Gerrit" point above.
>
the cla point is meant to ensure that everyone contributing something 
did actually accept the cla and that every commit is authored by the 
person it claims to be from. that's most easily achieved by requiring 
people to use gerrit for the incremental work, not only the final 
publication. but technically there is no reason why the branch could not 
be external and then the commits would be posted to gerrit one by one by 
their respective owners. teams who wish to experiment "in private" may 
prefer this approach.