the redirect tool went live at the end of last week.
Eric Shepherd (Sheppy) wrote on 10/9/18 7:44 pm:
Yes, we have found that and have been using it but as you say, it loses
some of the detail that has been historically helpful when writing
documentation. We eagerly await the redirect tool.
Yes, we have found that and have been using it but as you say, it loses
some of the detail that has been historically helpful when writing
documentation. We eagerly await the redirect tool.
I do have concerns, reading the comments about Phabricator and usability,
but I will wait to comment myself
On 09/05/2018 06:40 AM, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 07:37:28PM +0200, Dão Gottwald wrote:
This may have been discussed before since it's kind of an obvious question:
Was there a conscious decision not to post phabricator review comments to
bugzilla? It's a somewhat significant
This may have been discussed before since it's kind of an obvious question:
Was there a conscious decision not to post phabricator review comments to
bugzilla? It's a somewhat significant change from how we've used bugzilla.
I can see a potential upside of separating review comments from other
Martin Thomson writes:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:42 PM Mark Banner wrote:
>> A couple of things that may help with the scrolling & finding, that
>> people may or may not have found yet...
>
> The keyboard shortcuts are more accessible (type ? to see the list
> [1]), though in my experience they
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:42 PM Mark Banner wrote:
> A couple of things that may help with the scrolling & finding, that
> people may or may not have found yet...
The keyboard shortcuts are more accessible (type ? to see the list
[1]), though in my experience they interact poorly with concurrent
On 05/09/2018 04:40, Kris Maglione wrote:
Concur. Aside from future-proofing things, reading comments in
phabricator is pretty painful, especially for bugs with multiple
patches. With the old flow, I could look at all of them in one place.
Now, I have to open a half dozen separate pages, and
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 07:37:28PM +0200, Dão Gottwald wrote:
This may have been discussed before since it's kind of an obvious question:
Was there a conscious decision not to post phabricator review comments to
bugzilla? It's a somewhat significant change from how we've used bugzilla.
I can
Dão Gottwald wrote on 5/9/18 1:37 am:
This may have been discussed before since it's kind of an obvious
question:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/V1vuWPeD_hc/d-hio96ZAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/Y8kInYxo8UU/e3Pi-_FpBgAJ
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1480887 for the redirect
service, which is in progress.
Mark
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
> > Until this gets fixed, a workaround for closed bugs is to go to the
> bottom of the bug, and look for https://hg.mozilla.org/
>
> Until this gets fixed, a workaround for closed bugs is to go to the bottom of
> the bug, and look for https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/... links.
> Not as pretty, and missing review context, but hopefully this should help
> explore the changed code in most cases.
For bugs that
(Disclaimer: I'm not from IT!)
Until this gets fixed, a workaround for closed bugs is to go to the bottom of
the bug, and look for https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/... links.
Not as pretty, and missing review context, but hopefully this should help
explore the changed code in most
We've noticed that attachment links are no longer working because they're
still trying to go to reviewboard, and there don't appear to be redirects.
See for example this bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1211330. It has two
attachments. Clicking either one of them gives you a
To follow up on my follow up, there were some good suggestions on
dev-platform, so we're going to amend our plan somewhat.
On August 20, we will remove public access to MozReview and move all the
repositories on hg-reviewboard.mozilla.org to hg.mozilla.org (exact
location TBD). We will create a
Thank you for the notice, I actually use WSL only for arc diff, I do
everything else in the normal Windows terminal.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:41 PM Jeff Muizelaar
wrote:
> Beware when using a WSL terminal with a Firefox source directory that
> new directories created in WSL have case sensitive
Beware when using a WSL terminal with a Firefox source directory that
new directories created in WSL have case sensitive behaviour and this
causes cl.exe to get confused. This bit me last week.
-Jeff
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Marco Bonardo wrote:
> As a side note, the WSL terminal on
As a side note, the WSL terminal on Windows works properly with arc. The
only downside is that you need a Windows terminal to build and a separate
WSL terminal to arc diff...
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:25 PM Mark Côté wrote:
> I plan on updating a bunch of MDN docs within the next couple weeks.
I plan on updating a bunch of MDN docs within the next couple weeks. I
agree that the Windows installation can be confusing, and yes, I'd like to
package something. We're just trying to figure out the timeline for the
arc-less client, but it may well be worth packaging Arcanist regardless.
Mark
I talked to gps, and yes, we can totally do that.
Mark
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 06:31:34PM -0400, Mark Côté wrote:
> > The problem there is that the review repo will be bundled and stored. We
> > don't want to run another Mercurial server
Mark, does you or anyone update the document [*1] for new contributors?
This MDN page still uses mozreview's way, and current mozreview document in
readthedocs has exactly good for new contributors, but phabricator's
document [*2] isn't good for new comer because installation steps for
Windows
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 06:31:34PM -0400, Mark Côté wrote:
> The problem there is that the review repo will be bundled and stored. We
> don't want to run another Mercurial server indefinitely. Although, if the
> parent is a public changeset (as I believe most are), we could put a link
> to that
The problem there is that the review repo will be bundled and stored. We
don't want to run another Mercurial server indefinitely. Although, if the
parent is a public changeset (as I believe most are), we could put a link
to that commit in mozilla-central somewhere.
Mark
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at
Mark Côté writes:
> On August 20, we will remove public access to MozReview and archive
> patches. Every landed, in-progress, and abandoned patch will be downloaded
> from MozReview and stored in an S3 bucket. The “stub attachments” in
> Bugzilla that currently redirect to MozReview will be
We aren't planning on archiving those to S3 buckets; that would add more
complexity, since we can't just scrape Review Board for them, and from what
we can tell not too many patches have unpublished historical context.
That said, and I forgot to mention this in my announcement, we'll be
putting a
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> Every landed, in-progress, and abandoned patch will be downloaded
> from MozReview and stored in an S3 bucket.
I think I've asked this before, but plans were uncertain at the time:
will the history of patches (i.e. otherwise unpublished
To follow up on some previous threads, here is the plan for deprecating,
archiving, and decommissioning MozReview.
The MozReview shutdown deadline is approaching. Although enhanced
commit-series support is still in progress (see update below), MozReview
users should start familiarizing themselves
26 matches
Mail list logo
