On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 2018 21:03:39 Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I think the more fitting word is chubby. Good for mobile and touch >> screens. Not so good for mouse-navigated high-resolution screens (typical >> office setup). >> >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> The syntax highlighting looks good. >> >> I wonder if we can do patch reviewing via gitlab and also >> rebasing+pushing via gitlab (no merges), sort of what Gerrit can do. >> > > We can disallow actual merges and only allow fast-forward merges. I'm not > sure if our version will do the rebase for you or if you have to do it > yourself and force-push the branch prior to merging. In any case, we can > get the merge request workflow without ending up with merges in the history. > > Given the number of people who have said they still like the mailing list, > that's probably a discussion for another email thread. > Well, I have a little bit of experience with Phabricator and Gerrit, and they are great tools for reviewing. I think that a mailing list is the worst option when comes to comfort (no syntax highlighting, the font isn't monospace). Marek
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
