OT here, but that we have a backend that cant be updated any longer - and is abandoned by upstream - puts the project under a risk, which needs to be mitigated.
And what action would be better in your eyes than replacing the whole thing with something other? Isn’t this step the best thing we could do?
There is even an budget point for this in the Foundation Budget for 2021
Unfortunately the necessary amount of donations for this step has not been reached yet. So everybody can still help to reach this goal by donating to the foundation.
The reasons for the decision on how to replace the review tool have been discussed here:Taking care of infrastructure: code review
JFTR see also related topic Infrastructure Overview
Hello Korbinian, of course I remember the discussion about a future code review tool. It pays into the same bucket as this discussion here, and I’m still not convinced that a home-brewn extention of rietveld serves a better experience or attracts more contributors compared to a workflow like gitlab (which can be self hosted as well, AFAIK).
However, before doing anything on that we should know where we are: The infrastructure overview as addressed in the foundation budget 2021 should exactly deliver this.
Then we can develop a target architecture
The codereview server is just a service inside the infrastructure overview and changing how it works it won’t change so much the infrastructure. Just one service which is diferent that the other.
We have several services on the infrastucture: discuss, bug tracker, CI, etc.
If you have any better idea please comment on the relevant thread.
Thats good that you know what is where, but an overview was budgeted and should be delivered
I have commented on that thread, and I keep my opinion. Please re-read.
Nothing new on the thread so, nothing changes!
Reposting this falsely flagged and deleted post as agreed on with moderator @pokoli:
@udono According to this entry you have split out this thread into a new one. May I ask you to re-title it with something more meaningful instead of characterizing it as a general garbage collection? On mailing lists it is well established behavior to e.g. use a pattern like “[New topic] was: Old topic”.
To be honest, I still think this is off topic as we are just discussing about the topic of the thread but I will take some time to reply so everything is clear.
This is not mailing list so thinks work slightly different, here the reference of the originated posts are included directly on the post. So there is no need to use old format. You can see on the first and second post that there is a link to the original discussion:
Also, on the discuss forum you can start a private message to some set of users (for example udono and me who where mentionend on this topic). I think this is better to comment such issues for two reasons:
- It does not polute the discussion with non relevant topics
- The proposal is directly sent to the user how may take the action and it can be resolved without notice for other users.
There is no disagreement that the original post of this thread is Off-Topic, it was even marked by the original author that way.
May be this works differently on a forum, I have just put an example. The main thing is to put a meaningful title to the new thread when you decide to split some messages into a new thread. If you are not the author of those messages it would probably be best to contact them to do it themselves.
I can follow your intention to depollute(?) threads via private messages, but that was exactly not done in the first place. Was there any private initiative with the original poster?
I am still missing any action from any side to change this somehow pejorative title into something useful.
Thank you! (I have to fill up to required 20 chars)