[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

On 03/11/15 06:24, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> The way I see it, keeping review and committing/pushing separate is a >> good thing, and removes a lot of the concerns about hosting a review >> platform as it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/11/15 14:24, Michael Palimaka wrote: > Which workflow do you mean? Most features seem optional, allowing > people to work as they wish. It's been a while since I looked at it outside of GHC, so please bear in mind these things might have

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

On 02/11/15 22:08, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > It is tailored to Facebook's workflow. Their workflow does not > coincide with most other people's workflow. It doesn't work for my > company, and I suspect it won't work for Gentoo either. Which workflow do you mean? Most features seem optional,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/02/2015 01:26 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 02/11/15 09:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 11/01/2015 12:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >>> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for >>> pull requests and code review and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > The way I see it, keeping review and committing/pushing separate is a > good thing, and removes a lot of the concerns about hosting a review > platform as it is sufficient with read-access to repositories. > > Thanks

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

Patrice Clement posted on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:33:49 +0100 as excerpted: > [gerrit] > > Anyway, just my 2 cents on the topic. Have a look and you'll see in > terms of features, I think it's on a par with Github. And it's open > source. ;) FWIW from previous gerrit suggestions... The problem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

Monday 02 Nov 2015 09:29:48, Duncan wrote : > Patrice Clement posted on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:33:49 +0100 as excerpted: > > > [gerrit] > > > > Anyway, just my 2 cents on the topic. Have a look and you'll see in > > terms of features, I think it's on a par with Github. And it's open > > source. ;)

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

Patrice Clement posted on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 11:28:10 +0100 as excerpted: > By reading your answer, I'm not sure if it is clear or obvious for most > users how the workflow between the Gentoo infra <-> Github infra > functions so maybe we should explain it one more time: [...] > 4) How do we merge

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

On 02/11/15 06:23, hasufell wrote: > On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull >> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator >> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work. >>

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

On 02/11/15 09:07, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/01/2015 12:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull >> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator >> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review

Michał Górny posted on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:34:06 +0100 as excerpted: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:44:39 +1100 Michael Palimaka > wrote: > >> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull >> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator