Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on

On 16 May 2017 at 15:38, Alexandre Franke <afranke gnome org> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Allan Day <aday gnome org> wrote:
In recent months we have got together to examine the possibilities for
GNOME’s development infrastructure. We’ve spent a lot of time on this,
because we want the community to have faith in our conclusions. If you are
interested in this, you can read our research on the wiki [1].

Excellent. I think most will agree it’s time we implement such changes.

The outcome of this evaluation process is that we are recommending that
GNOME sets up its own GitLab instance, as a replacement for Bugzilla and

This mail mentions Gitlab as the only alternative. I know some people
suggested to consider Phabricator, yet your proposal doesn’t mention
it and by the looks of the wiki pages your research has been focused
around Gitlab. Now I know very little about both Gitlab and
Phabricator so I won’t push or block anything, but I’m a bit worried
that this wasn’t given enough scrutiny.

Phabricator was thoroughly investigated; the wiki page has whole
sections on it, including why we think it's not what GNOME needs. :-)

I use Phabricator at work (for issue tracking) and I honestly gave my
personal position about it, balanced against GitLab; additionally, we
consulted with Daniel Stone, who handled the transition between
Bugzilla and Phab at Collabora and on the FreeDesktop.Org
infrastructure. We even had Phacility very kindly provide us with a
test instance to play with.

The main issues with Phabricator is that its code hosting is kind of
primitive, and its workflow is heavily patch-oriented. You have to
create patch files and "attach" them to issues, instead of creating
branches and asking the maintainer to merge them.

From an issue tracking and project management perspective, Phabricator
is a winner in my eyes — but the requirements from GNOME are
definitely more oriented towards the code hosting and integration. As
much as I like working with Phab, I don't think it's a good fit for

This, of course, does not mean that we wouldn't be able to add a
Phabricator instance in the future; it would probably be easier to
migrate a pure GitLab set up to a GitLab + Phabricator, in any case.


[@] ebassi []

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]