[Mesa-dev] Gitlab migration

Marek Olšák maraeo at gmail.com
Sun May 27 16:03:36 UTC 2018

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>

> On May 26, 2018 21:03:39 Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On May 25, 2018 23:43:33 Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Daniel Stone <daniel at 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 <jason at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20180527/2b1254bc/attachment.html>

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list