Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 08:34 +0100, Milan Crha wrote: > By the way, what were/are your main issues with Bugzilla? See https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Oh haha Carlos Soriano GNOME Board of Directors On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Florian Müllner wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, 09:36 Carlos Soriano, wrote: > >> The shortcuts for example, would be good to have a shortcuts window as we >> implemented

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, 09:36 Carlos Soriano, wrote: > The shortcuts for example, would be good to have a shortcuts window as we > implemented recently at GNOME > The problem with those is of course that they are often not very discoverable themselves. Case in point, GitLab

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

GitLab is definitely intended to be compehensible withouth consulting a manual, and just by the UI. If the UI is unclear, it's probably a bug or a missing feature, and they have a design team for these. The shortcuts for example, would be good to have a shortcuts window as we implemented recently

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 17:50 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > I seriously doubt you were born with innate knowledge of Bugzilla - Hi, it sounds like you consider an intuitive interface something obscure. Well, it's intuitive at least for me. > even though Bugzilla's feature set is

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 16:50 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > Coming from GitHub, Bugzilla was like regressing to the stone age. If > I were to insist that my opinion take precedence in the same way that > has happened multiple times on this thread, I'd demand that all > activity on

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:57 PM wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro >> wrote: >> > Looking over #8, I think duplicate issues, canned

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:57 PM wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > Looking over #8, I think duplicate issues, canned replies, and > > dependencies between issues should all be considered blockers to > > issue

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Looking over #8, I think duplicate issues, canned replies, and dependencies between issues should all be considered blockers to issue tracker migration. Carlos has pointed out that there is rudimentary (not very

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 12/11/2017 10:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: That's what tags are for, given that "dependencies" and "blockers" in Bugzilla are flat lists of bug numbers — unlike, say, Phabricator's trees of issues. Fair enough, actually. That does work to replace tracker bugs, which is my main use case

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 11 December 2017 at 15:51, wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: >> >> I was providing my opinions on which issues should be blockers for GNOME. >> I'm not issuing demands here... Carlos is running this show. > > > I

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: I was providing my opinions on which issues should be blockers for GNOME. I'm not issuing demands here... Carlos is running this show. I updated a tracker bug today:

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 12/08/2017 10:50 AM, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: I admire Carlos' restraint here but I'm going to say it more bluntly: in my opinion, it is unfair to expect that any individual person's opinion on their preferred must-haves should be able to block the migration from moving forward.

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Milan Crha wrote: > > > a) See the second comment of >https://gitlab-test.gnome.org/mcrha/test/issues/2 >It shows like three lines of text (one line, then empty line, then >third line). When you edit that comment you'll see I made it

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:36 PM Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hey Michael, > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > >> I've been rewriting this email again and again to try not to be too >> impolitic... and I don't think I've succeeded,

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Can't you write a simple greasemonkey script to add canned replies to gitlab, until they are implemented upstream? No, because our web browser does not support Greasemonkey yet. (Should be possible to do using

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 07/12/17 21:04, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I use a long canned reply to close probably half the bugs I receive ("here is > how you report a WebKit bug..."), and bug management would be extremely > frustrating without it. I could keep it in a text file and copy/paste for a > couple months, as

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Sorry, I meant this link https://gitlab-test.gnome.org/mcrha/test/labels. What you were missing is that labels are entities, and you can create, delete, rename, add a description, subscribe to them (for example for components of a project) etc. What I did to do what you see is left sidebar ->

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Hey Milan, I just took a look at your issue. You couldn't add a label because you didn't created any label in the project. I create some for you so you can play with them. https://gitlab-test.gnome.org/mcrha/test/issues/2 Best -- Carlos Soriano GNOME Foundation Treasurer, Board of Directors On

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Hey Michael, On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I've been rewriting this email again and again to try not to be too > impolitic... and I don't think I've succeeded, but I want to try to express > the importance to me of some of the missing issue

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

I've been rewriting this email again and again to try not to be too impolitic... and I don't think I've succeeded, but I want to try to express the importance to me of some of the missing issue tracker features. On 12/07/2017 12:07 PM, Carlos Soriano wrote: Said that, add your comments about

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

And I agree, I also want a reply button! On Thu., 7 Dec. 2017, 19:07 Carlos Soriano, wrote: > If you read my email fully and clicked the links, you would have seen the > specific date the rebase before merge is coming to our instance. > > I'm surprised that copy a comment

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

If you read my email fully and clicked the links, you would have seen the specific date the rebase before merge is coming to our instance. I'm surprised that copy a comment and clicking the button "quote" vs pressing a button should be considered a blocker for migrating more projects. If that's

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I'll add two more to Milan's list: > > (1) Canned replies. I would rather stay with Bugzilla forever than give up > canned replies. That is being tracked:

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 17:01, Milan Crha wrote: > On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 18:49 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > a) See the second comment of >https://gitlab-test.gnome.org/mcrha/test/issues/2 >It shows like three lines of text (one line, then empty line, then >third

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 17:19, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On 12/07/2017 11:01 AM, Milan Crha wrote: >> >> b) How do I reply to a comment? > > > This one should be a blocker to migrating any more projects. > (1) Canned replies. I would rather stay with Bugzilla forever than

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 12/07/2017 11:01 AM, Milan Crha wrote: b) How do I reply to a comment? This one should be a blocker to migrating any more projects. Lack of quoting is sufficiently annoying that it discourages me from participating in bug report for other maintainer's modules that have moved to GitLab.

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:18 AM Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 12:10 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > On 7 December 2017 at 11:57, Germán Poo-Caamaño > > wrote: > > > > > > > Have you considered the backlash to GNOME that it may cause? > > >

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 18:49 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > I have good news, after few meetings and discussions with GitLab we > reached an agreement on a way to bring the features we need and to > fix our most important blockers in a reasonable time and in a way > that are synced with us.

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 14:17, Allan Day wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > ... >> This raises the question of who is going to review the currently >> insufficient-bordering-on-useless code of conduct that we have for >> GNOME online services and, more generally,

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > This raises the question of who is going to review the currently > insufficient-bordering-on-useless code of conduct that we have for > GNOME online services and, more generally, for the community? ... As you know, I'm also on the Foundation Board

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 13:28, Allan Day wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > ... >> And, yes: diversity is still an issue that we need to tackle [insert >> subtle reminder here about the code of conduct rework that the board >> is still working on and that I hope

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > And, yes: diversity is still an issue that we need to tackle [insert > subtle reminder here about the code of conduct rework that the board > is still working on and that I hope I'll see in my lifetime]. ... Small clarification - it's the working

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 12:18, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: >> And, yes: diversity is still an issue that we need to tackle [insert >> subtle reminder here about the code of conduct rework that the board >> is still working on and that I hope I'll see in my lifetime]. > > I did read

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 12:10 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > On 7 December 2017 at 11:57, Germán Poo-Caamaño > wrote: > > > > Have you considered the backlash to GNOME that it may cause? > > https://twitter.com/Amorelandra/status/938444347506180096 > > > > I just learned about

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 11:57, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > Have you considered the backlash to GNOME that it may cause? > https://twitter.com/Amorelandra/status/938444347506180096 > > I just learned about it. You should probably read the whole thread.

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 18:49 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hello community, > > I have good news, after few meetings and discussions with GitLab we > reached > an agreement on a way to bring the features we need and to fix our > most > important blockers >

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:03 +0100, Milan Crha wrote: > I filled https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/40903 there. Hi again, and also https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/40904 I do not see how to add labels to the issue, and the test instance doesn't do anything with

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 19:31 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > To explain it better, my discussions with them are for high impact > changes. My bandwidth is fully in there. Hi, that's understood and a reason why I made it "nice to have" and nothing more. I filled

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:49 AM Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hello community, > > I have good news, after few meetings and discussions with GitLab we > reached an agreement on a way to bring the features we need and to fix our > most important blockers >

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Hey Milan, To explain it better, my discussions with them are for high impact changes. My bandwidth is fully in there. We however maintain our own list in a way for us to keep an eye for improvements we want to see and

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 18:49 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > I have good news, after few meetings and discussions with GitLab we > reached an agreement on a way to bring the features we need and to > fix our most important blockers in a reasonable time and in a way > that are synced with us.

GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Hello community, I have good news, after few meetings and discussions with GitLab we reached an agreement on a way to bring the features we need and to fix our most important blockers in a reasonable time and in a way that