[Insight-developers] [ITK Community] A Contrib group?

[Matt McCormick]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com> wrote:
> On 01/16/2014 04:31 PM, Bradley Lowekamp wrote:
>> It's was not clear to me that a separate group for contributions
>> was proven not to work. Certainly referring to it despairingly as
>> "second-class" is not inspiring. Specifically what were the problems,
>> from the previous Review?
>
> As of ITK 3.20.1 there were almost 350 classes in "Review":
>
>  $ git ls-tree -r v3.20.1 -- Code/Review |grep '.h$' |wc -l
>  349
>
> A manual check of all commits ever to remove files up to that point:
>
>  $ gitk v3.20.1 --diff-filter=D -M -- Code/Review
>
> shows that only about 20 classes were ever moved to other kits.
> Only a dedicated sweeping effort during modularization moved them
> elsewhere, and that still left behind about 70 classes as of 4.5.
>
>> Additionally, How is steering new contributions into remote modules,
>> not creating a tiered system?
>
> I argued against using remote modules for new contributors or review
> and argued in favor of direct review in Gerrit for upstream integration.
>

Review in Gerrit, good code coverage, and green dashboard are
components of a quality system, and since we want to deliver a quality
system they should be requirements for being turned ON by default and
possibly inclusion in the tree.

-------------

I don't think the reason that the previous system was as successful as
it could have been is because it was tiered.  It was not
scalable/possible for a single person to move code into Review then
out of Review.  Luckily, with Git/Gerrit/CDash at Home/CMake, this is no
longer the only mechanism to maintain and enhance the toolkit.

Thanks,
Matt