On 09/03/2015 09:18 AM, Joe Hillenbrand wrote: >> As a wild idea -- did anyone look at /Gitlab/ instead? > > My personal experience with Gitlab at a previous job is that it is > extremely unstable. I'd say even more unstable than trac and > phabricator. It's especially bad when dealing with long files. >
If we're talking alternative systems, then I can personally recommend Gerrit (https://www.gerritcodereview.com/) which, while it *looks* pretty basic, it works really well with the general Git workflow. For example, it tracks commits in individual reviews, but tracks dependencies between those commits. So when e.g. you push a new series of commits implementing a feature, all those reviews just get a new "version" and you can diff between different versions of each individual commit -- this often cuts down drastically on how much you have to re-review when a new version is submitted. You can also specify auto-merge when a review gets +2 (or +1, or whatever), including rebase-before-merge-and-ff instead of having merge commits which just clutter the history needlessly. You can set up various rules using a predicate-based rules engine, for example about a review needing two approvals and/or always needing approval from an (external) build system, etc. The only setup it needs in a git hook... which it will tell you exactly how to install with a single command when you push your first review. (It's some scp command, I seem to recall.) Caveat: I haven't tried using it on Windows. Regards, _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs