[webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Peter Kasting pkasting at google.com
Sat Jun 6 00:17:40 PDT 2009

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Mark Rowe <mrowe at apple.com> wrote:

> Dropping our existing practice of using Bugzilla for patch reviews is one
> way of addressing this.  Folding the more useful features of Rietveld in to
> Bugzilla to improve Bugzilla-based patch reviews is another.  We all seem to
> be in agreement that the tools involved with reviewing a patch have room for
> improvement, but
> I've not seen a compelling reason why the former is a better way forward.

If people were really interested in changing, then it would take probably
two orders of magnitude less effort to set up a Rietveld instance to
associate with Bugzilla (to the degree it currently can associate with the
Google Code bug tracker), as compared with improving Bugzilla.  The former
is basically adding a few URLs to some scripts, the latter is highly
nontrivial coding.  That seems compelling to me.

> (Right now it's about 10x easier for me to get a Chromium patch reviewed
> than a WebKit one just because a single shell command can create a Rietveld
> issue with my patch and set the description up for me.)
> This something of a non-sequiter, since it is trivial to create a script to
> do the same with Bugzilla.  I've heard mentions of a git-send-bugzilla
> script that does most of this already, and I'm sure it could easily be
> adapted for those preferring SVN.

True.  Still, I _have_ that script for Chromium, and I don't for WebKit :).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20090606/d0666ec6/attachment.html>

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list