[webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Mark Rowe mrowe at apple.com
Sat Jun 6 15:51:41 PDT 2009

On 2009-06-06, at 15:02, Peter Kasting wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Mark Rowe <mrowe at apple.com> wrote:
> Per Ojan's original email it is not as simple as adding a few URLs  
> to some scripts, code changes would be needed to make it suitable  
> for our purposes.  Let's try and avoid hyperbole: it makes it  
> difficult to have a reasonable discussion.
> I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.  It is my sincere opinion that in  
> fact the changes are as simple as I mentioned.
> Of the issues that Ojan mentioned in his original email, I see three  
> that would need to be addressed before we could consider adopting  
> Rietveld:
> - Currently tied to AppEngine.
> I don't understand why this is problematic in the least, any more  
> than saying "Bugzilla is currently tied to being run by Bugzilla".   
> Why does it matter what the backing implementation of Rietveld is?

Primarily due to the two points that you trimmed from my email:

> Two other major issues jump out at me:
> - Authentication. This is related to the AppEngine tie-in.
> - Authorization.  Patch reviews need to reflect the access controls  
> on the bugs that they are associated with.

There are also concerns about access to the data store of the  
application, backup procedures, etc.  Our existing servers are well  
understood in this regard.   We've also found in the past that having  
services spread across different systems causes confusion when  
something goes wrong, for whatever reason, as it's not clear who to  
contact to address the problem.

> - Doesn't work with diff's generated by git.
> I didn't realize git was formally supported by WebKit.  I assume git  
> can generate diff/patch/svn-compatible diffs with some options (I am  
> not a git user).

It's not our official version control system, but many WebKit  
contributors use git with WebKit via git-svn.  Most of our scripts  
have been updated to work with both Subversion and Git, and something  
as central as patch review would definitely need to continue to  
support users of git.

> - It's hard to spell.  Retyping it to fix the spelling makes me sad.
> Other than this email series, I've never actually had to spell  
> Rietveld.  Certainly not while submitting, editing, reviewing, or  
> landing patches :).  I think this is irrelevant.

Great to see that we all have a sense of humor.

> In summary, I did not realize that the WebKit community was even  
> interested in changing their review system before seeing these  
> emails, but if they are, I sincerely believe that Rietveld is far  
> better than Bugzilla for patch review and strong consideration  
> should be given to simply dropping it in, which I believe would be  
> very easy to do.

I don't disagree that modifying an existing system to fit our needs  
may be easier than improving Bugzilla, but you're still overstating  
the ease with which Rietveld can be dropped in.

If we're all convinced that moving patch review to a separate system  
is a good idea, then we should also look further in to Review Board too.

- Mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20090606/67d80700/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3166 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20090606/67d80700/attachment.bin>

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list