Re: Concluding the Gitlab Discussion
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:27:27 +1300
- From: Ben Cooksley <bcooksley@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: 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.
> ---- 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