Knowing that core contributors like you and GIMP maintainers will have access to the repo, are the sporadic contributions still many enough enough for fetching a remote being inconvenient? Is it because it takes considerably more time to fetch a repo than download and applying a patch?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org
Local Time: May 17, 2017 12:47 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 10:47 AM
From: jehan marmottard gmail com
To: Tristan Van Berkom <tristan vanberkom codethink co uk>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
Hi,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet gnome org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:15:51PM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>> I don't share your optimism about gitlab bug tracking, nor do I share
>> in the mentioned frustration with bugzilla.
>
> Me too, I like bugzilla (but not for doing code reviews).
>
> What would be the pain points if GitLab is used only for git and code
> reviews, and we keep bugzilla for the bug tracker? Have you considered
> that option?
>
> We would loose automatic links between bug tracker tickets and pull
> requests. When a pull request is merged, we would need to close manually
> the bugzilla ticket if everything is done. And when someone requests a
> pull, the person would need to add a comment manually on bugzilla so
> that other people know that the bug is being worked on.
>
> Mmh I think that's not practical if the links must be done manually.
>
> Maintaining the bugzilla instance would also require sysadmin time, and
> development efforts to rebase the patches to new bugzilla versions.
>
> I don't know, I'm excited about the idea to use a similar contribution
> workflow as in GitHub, but less excited about having a bug tracker
> similar to the GitHub one. (I've never used GitLab, but I'm familiar
> with GitHub, and after seeing some screenshots it seems that the GitLab
> bug tracker is similar to GitHub's).
I like bugzilla too and guess it probably does more than github/lab
bug trackers. But I also know there are annoying parts. Like someone
noted that searching projects in the long list of GNOME projects is
terrible experience (I even have a browser keyword so that I don't
have to do this anymore, because it was so annoying; but obviously new
contributors would not have such shortcuts).
Also the fact that the reports actually have less options is not bad
IMO. One gets lost in all these bz options. Simplicity is good
sometimes. :-)
gitlab has cool features too, like it's much easier to mention someone
to have them take a look at a report, for instance.
And finally, as you say, code review is much better. I like that you
can annotate line per line (easier for the reviewee in particular to
understand our review).
Bottom line: I definitely don't think we should keep both bz and
gitlab in the end.
The only thing I am annoyed at is this forking workflow. Both as a
contributor, and as a code committer/reviewer. Having to fetch a new
remote for every single-commit contribution out there is terrible.
Jehan
> --
> Sébastien
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
--
ZeMarmot open animation film
http://film.zemarmot.net
Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot
Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
