Web lists-archives.com

Re: Concluding the Gitlab Discussion




On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:47 PM Nate Graham <nate@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> One thing I'd really like to not lose is the review status feature (approved/changes requested/etc). I've head that this is EE only. Is there any word on getting that added to our package?

We'll look into discussing this with them.

>
> Other than that, I think I think what Gitlab offers over Phabricator is either a significant win or else just something different that you can get used to quickly.
>
> Nate

Regards,
Ben

>
>
>  ---- On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:26:24 -0600 Ben Cooksley <bcooksley@xxxxxxx> wrote ----
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > Over the past few weeks we've had a discussion on whether we'd like to
>  > migrate from Phabricator to Gitlab, for handling both our code reviews
>  > as well as internal tasks (user facing bug reports are explicitly out
>  > of context at this time)
>  >
>  > Based on the comments the overall consensus seems to be at this stage
>  > to favour switching to Gitlab.
>  >
>  > This however is subject to a caveat around multiple task boards, which
>  > would be needed for larger projects to effectively coordinate amongst
>  > the various sub-projects.
>  >
>  > As part of the transition we will also arrange for the email interface
>  > to be enabled (for emailing in patches) and for the default for merges
>  > to be rebase when it's not a fast forward merge for all repositories.
>  >
>  > Does anyone have any final comments?
>  >
>  > In terms of the steps forward from here, Sysadmin will need a bit of
>  > time to prepare various parts of the infrastructure for the transition
>  > (such as the anongit network, which will need a full rebuild as part
>  > of switching).
>  >
>  > Once this is complete, we'll be in touch with more information on how
>  > the transition will take place.
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > Ben Cooksley
>  > KDE Sysadmin
>  >
>