Am 01.07.19 um 15:37 schrieb James Ramsay:
Is it primarily the previous discussions so that you can better
respond directly via email? If so, this proposal to include entire
discussion thread in email notifications
(https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/40557) which Zsolt is
looking
Hi James,
thanks for the info, that sounds great!
I think the lack of context and bulk review are really my main issues.
Other than that I can't think of any right now. I also only just now
realized the filename shown in the mail is actually a deep-link to the
actual comment.
Cheers
Kai Uwe
On 7/2/19 3:53 PM, Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
Please lets keep in mind that this is not a thread to complain about
Gitlab. No platform is perfect, and we're not yet on production machines.
This thread is about how to make our review process great for both
newbies and experienced developers, *and
In our move to Gitlab, we can do better.
Given Gitlab emails contain even less information and context than
Phabricator which themselves contained even less information and
context
than Reviewboard back then, I don't see how this will change or
improve
anything.
Thanks for the feedback Kai.
Please lets keep in mind that this is not a thread to complain about
Gitlab. No platform is perfect, and we're not yet on production machines.
This thread is about how to make our review process great for both newbies
and experienced developers, *and reviewers* - on Gitlab.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 a
El dimarts, 2 de juliol de 2019, a les 8:42:26 CEST, Boudewijn Rempt va
escriure:
> On maandag 1 juli 2019 23:34:14 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > Or were you mostly getting patches sent as plain diffs uploaded to
> > phabricator instead of by using arc?
>
> Yes, nearly nobody uses arc.
As
On dinsdag 2 juli 2019 13:07:02 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote:
> I assume this means most of your new users are people who have never
> worked with Github/Gitlab before in that case...
I don't know; it might mean that, but I cannot be sure. I can only report the
reactions from my newbies :-)
> So in
вт, 2 июл. 2019 г. в 14:07, Ben Cooksley :
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:42 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > Try opening the changes tab for
> > https://invent.kde.org/kde/krita/merge_requests/54. This makes my browser
> > warn me two or three times that the page is using a lot of CPU and it takes
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:09 PM Kai Uwe Broulik wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > What are you missing?
>
> The description of the change (Review Board had that, Phabricator
> doesn't, so I got used to it, I guess...), the context of the comment
> (i.e. the code snippet a comment was added to), so I don't need
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:42 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
> On maandag 1 juli 2019 23:34:14 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El dilluns, 1 de juliol de 2019, a les 9:42:34 CEST, Boudewijn Rempt va
> > escriure:
>
> > > Krita has switched from Phabricator to Gitlab a while ago, so maybe I can
> >
On Dienstag, 2. Juli 2019 09:08:44 CEST Kai Uwe Broulik wrote:
> Doesn't mean it's better. When I review code I start reading it top to
> bottom, commenting on every detail that I find fishy, convoluted, or
> broken. Sometimes after having added a comment I find an explanation
> further down, o
Hi,
What are you missing?
The description of the change (Review Board had that, Phabricator
doesn't, so I got used to it, I guess...), the context of the comment
(i.e. the code snippet a comment was added to), so I don't need to open
GitLab to figure out what's going on.
On Phabricator yo
On maandag 1 juli 2019 23:34:14 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El dilluns, 1 de juliol de 2019, a les 9:42:34 CEST, Boudewijn Rempt va
> escriure:
> > Krita has switched from Phabricator to Gitlab a while ago, so maybe I can
> > add our experience. It's not that great, though.
> >
> > Bad:
>
El dilluns, 1 de juliol de 2019, a les 9:42:34 CEST, Boudewijn Rempt va
escriure:
> On maandag 1 juli 2019 09:10:59 CEST Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > This tells me that Gitlab can be worse, which is not surprising.
> >
> > And can it be better? Will some folks who have a good experience with
El dilluns, 1 de juliol de 2019, a les 8:46:39 CEST, Kai Uwe Broulik va
escriure:
> Hi,
>
> > In our move to Gitlab, we can do better.
>
> Given Gitlab emails contain even less information and context than
> Phabricator which themselves contained even less information and context
> than Revie
On maandag 1 juli 2019 09:10:59 CEST Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
>
> This tells me that Gitlab can be worse, which is not surprising.
>
> And can it be better? Will some folks who have a good experience with this
> on Gitlab speak up?
>
> This is something that all of us want and need to know.
>
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:47 PM Kai Uwe Broulik
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > In our move to Gitlab, we can do better.
>
> Given Gitlab emails contain even less information and context than
> Phabricator which themselves contained even less information and context
> than Reviewboard back then, I don't see
Hi,
> In our move to Gitlab, we can do better.
Given Gitlab emails contain even less information and context than
Phabricator which themselves contained even less information and context
than Reviewboard back then, I don't see how this will change or improve
anything.
> Phab sends out an em
Hello folks, as you know, I'm not a coder. However, I'm interested in our
code quality, and there has been some observation that "lots of patches get
missed, and submitters get confused due to a lack of auto-populated
reviewers" on Phabricator. Nate Graham has been adding groups to the
reviewers by
19 matches
Mail list logo
