Migrating Wayland & Weston to GitLab

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:33:49 +0100
Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:

> Personally, I'd like to use MRs for at least Weston development. I'm
> much happier reviewing them there than mail, and although the workflow
> isn't perfect, mail certainly isn't either.
> 
> Some other people said they preferred a mail workflow for
> wayland-protocols. That does make a little more sense to me, though if
> Weston moves to GitLab, then it would make wayland-protocols the odd
> one out for protocol development: AGL using Gerrit review,
> Enlightenment/EFL using Phabricator review, GENIVI using Gerrit
> review, Mutter/GTK+ using GNOME GitLab MRs, KDE using Phabricator
> review, Qt using Gerrit review, Tizen using a mix of Gerrit and
> Phabricator, Weston using fd.o GitLab MRs, and wlc/wlroots using
> GitHub review. But our volume of protocol review is small enough that
> it's probably not a massive deal.
> 
> Similarly, I have a preference for using MRs for the core Wayland
> repo, but again we don't have a super high volume of patches right
> now.
> 
> Using MRs would also allow us to hook up CI pipelines so we could get
> fast feedback on whether the basic build and checks succeeded, which I
> think is pretty helpful given the number of times we've broken
> distcheck lately.
> 
> What do others think?

I think CI is reason enough to use a gitlab MR-based patch
submission.

wayland-protocols OTOH does not have significant tests for CI, it only
makes sure the XML is accepted by wayland-scanner, so there CI is not a
significant reason.

On other points of view, I don't have a strong preference. I've done
email reviews and I've done a bit of github reviews, but for anything
non-trivial I practically always get the branch or apply the patches and
look at them in gitk, git-grep and a code editor.

FWIW, I never look at code on my phone, and I still do not have any
HiDPI displays, so on the debate of gitlab visual layout I'm on the
side of "it's wasting screen space". That's probably obvious if you
know what gitk looks like. ;-)


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20180605/f358d094/attachment.sig>