On May 25, 2018 23:43:33 Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm going to attempt to interleave a bunch of replies here.
On 23 May 2018 at 20:34, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
The freedesktop.org admins are trying to move as many projects and services
as possible over to gitlab and somehow I got hoodwinked into spear-heading
it for mesa. There are a number of reasons for this change. Some of those
reasons have to do with the maintenance cost of our sprawling and aging
infrastructure. Some of those reasons provide significant benefit to the
project being migrated:
Thanks for starting the discussion! I appreciate the help.
To be clear, we _are_ migrating the hosting for all projects, as in,
the remote you push to will change. We've slowly staged this with a
few projects of various shapes and sizes, and are confident that it
more than holds up to the load. This is something we can pull the
trigger on roughly any time, and I'm happy to do it whenever. When
that happens, trying to push to ssh://git.fd.o will give you an error
message explaining how to update your SSH keys, how to change your
remotes, etc.
cgit and anongit will not be orphaned: they remain as push mirrors so
are updated simultaneously with GItLab pushes, as will the GitHub
mirrors. Realistically, we can't deprecate anongit for a (very) long
time due to the millions of Yocto forks which have that URL embedded
in their build recipes. Running cgit alongside that is fairly
low-intervention. And hey, if we look at the logs in five years' time
and see 90% of people still using cgit to browse and not GitLab,
that's a pretty strong hint that we should put effort into keeping it.
Well, I don't know what people are talking about. A cgit commit log is a
tight table with 5 columns with information. I can't find anything like
that in GitLab. All I could find is this:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/jekstrand/mesa/commits/master
The elements are too large and don't have much information. Why would you
have the author name on another line when you could add another column
instead? There is a lot of unused screen space. And why having avatars in
the commit log. It's not Facebook.
Then there is the project Overview page. It mostly just shows files in the
top level directory. Compare it with cgit where the Overview page looks
like a, guess what, overview!
GitLab's "branches" page is sort of the same thing but with GitLab's more
chunky style. They make the same choice as GitHub to have the homepage be
there for browser and the project's readme. (You have to name it README.md
for that to work). It makes sense on GitHub because that's all many
projects have for a home page. Given that most Mesa people who go to the
web view are doing so to find a particular branch and read the commit log,
it may not be the optimal choice.
OK, that was harsh, but there is a lot of truth to it. I guess GitLab is
great for admins and I get that. Speaking of the web UI, at least the
read-only view is impressively unimpressive.
Perhaps part of the reason why I like the GitLab UI so much is because I'm
a crazy person who regularly uses it from my phone. When you open the two
on a mobile device, the difference in usability is night and day. I also
spend a lot of time in the file viewer and really like syntax highlighting.
--Jason
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
