Andres Löh <and...@well-typed.com> writes: > Hi. > >> Unfortunately, if I am not mistaken, GitLab also has a big problem. It >> requires the use of GitLab CI — i.e., we cannot use CircleCI and Appveyor >> with it. (At least, that is my current understanding. Please correct me if I >> am wrong.) > > Just a clarification on this issue. > > I might be wrong, but my understanding is that: > > - Gitlab offers its own Gitlab CI, but it doesn't force you to use it, > and doesn't prevent you from using other CI solutions. > > - Web-based CI solutions have to specifically support Gitlab for you to > be able to use them with Gitlab. > > - To my knowledge, Appveyor supports Gitlab, but Circle and Travis > currently do not. I know that there are issues open for these systems > to support Gitlab, but I have no idea whether this is likely to happen > anytime soon. For example, for Circle, the discussion seems to be > here: https://circleci.com/ideas/?idea=CCI-I-248 > That is entirely correct; however, we have already invested the effort to build a bridge between Phabricator and CircleCI (only to have deployment complicated by an apparent Phabricator bug).
The implementation of this didn't take particularly long and I expect migrating this work to GitLab would be if anything easier (since GitLab has a more-standard REST interface than Phabricator's Conduit). Cheers, - ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
