On 08/06/18 00:21 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 07/06/18 15:40 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:01 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>>> I think we need to hang tight and wait to see what the landscape
>>> looks like after the dust settles. There are a lot of people on
>>> different
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 06/11/2018 08:31 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 06/11/2018 03:18 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
Gerrit is a much more powerful tool for code-review. The workflow is
less intuitive however and has a
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 06/11/2018 08:31 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 06/11/2018 03:18 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
Gerrit is a much more powerful tool for code-review. The
workflow is less intuitive however and has a far higher
learning curve.
I
On 06/11/2018 08:31 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 06/11/2018 03:18 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
Gerrit is a much more powerful tool for code-review. The workflow is
less intuitive however and has a far higher learning curve.
I disagree, but please can you
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 06/11/2018 03:18 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
Gerrit is a much more powerful tool for code-review. The workflow
is less intuitive however and has a far higher learning curve.
I disagree, but please can you clarify which version of Gerrit you
are
On 06/11/2018 03:18 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 2018-06-07 08:58, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
I'll confess that I have no experience with Gerrit or the Github
required reviews, and I don't really know how they differ. :)
Adding some info as these are things I know
Nils Carlson wrote:
On 2018-06-07 08:58, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
I'll confess that I have no experience with Gerrit or the Github
required reviews, and I don't really know how they differ. :)
Adding some info as these are things I know something about.
Gitlab & Github are very similar,
On 2018-06-07 08:58, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
Jan Pokorný writes:
On 07/06/18 08:48 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
Jan Pokorný writes:
But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely headed,
I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the
bandwagon
Jan Pokorný wrote:
On 07/06/18 11:10 +, Nils Carlson wrote:
The fundamental unit of review in Gitlab is the merge-request, requesting
that a branch be merged into another. This works very well in practice. You
can configure a regex for branch names and only allow users to push to
branches
On 07/06/18 11:10 +, Nils Carlson wrote:
> On 2018-06-07 08:58, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
>> Jan Pokorný writes:
>>> AFAIK this doesn't address the qualitative complaint I have. It makes
>>> for a very poor experience when there's no readily available way to
>>> observe evolution of
On 2018-06-07 06:21 PM, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 07/06/18 15:40 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:01 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>>> I think we need to hang tight and wait to see what the landscape
>>> looks like after the dust settles. There are a lot of people on
>>> different
On 07/06/18 15:40 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:01 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>> I think we need to hang tight and wait to see what the landscape
>> looks like after the dust settles. There are a lot of people on
>> different projects under the Clusterlabs group. To have them all
On 04/06/18 09:23 +0200, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> As a second step, it might also be wise to start offering release
> tarballs elsewhere, preferrably OpenPGP-signed proper releases
> (as in "make dist" or the like) -- then it can be served practically
> from whatever location without imminent risk of
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:01 -0400, Digimer wrote:
> On 2018-06-07 02:48 AM, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> > Jan Pokorný writes:
> >
> > >
> > > But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely
> > > headed,
> > > I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the
> > >
Adam Spiers writes:
> Kristoffer Gronlund wrote:
>>>On 07/06/18 08:48 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
Jan Pokorný writes:
>>So GitLab has a problem that AFAIK even GitHub didn't have, where
>>certain crucial features are only in the enterprise edition -
>
> You're portraying GitLab
Kristoffer Gronlund wrote:
On 07/06/18 08:48 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
Jan Pokorný writes:
So GitLab has a problem that AFAIK even GitHub didn't have, where
certain crucial features are only in the enterprise edition -
You're portraying GitLab as worse than GitHub here, but your
Jan Pokorný writes:
> On 07/06/18 08:48 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
>> Jan Pokorný writes:
>>> But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely headed,
>>> I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the
>>> bandwagon inclined more towards free (as in freedom)
On 07/06/18 08:48 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> Jan Pokorný writes:
>> But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely headed,
>> I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the
>> bandwagon inclined more towards free (as in freedom) software
>> principles.
>>
>>
Jan Pokorný writes:
>
> But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely headed,
> I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the
> bandwagon inclined more towards free (as in freedom) software
> principles.
>
> Possible options off the top of my head:
> - GitLab,
19 matches
Mail list logo
