On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jason Ekstrand
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:55 AM Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
>> On 2018-11-30 4:57 p.m., Daniel Stone wrote:
>> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 17:23, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Personally speaking, I think that better next steps for gitlab
>> int
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:55 AM Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 4:57 p.m., Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 17:23, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >
> >> Personally speaking, I think that better next steps for gitlab
> integration are:
> >> - migrate from bugzilla to gitlab issues
> >
>
On 2018-11-30 4:57 p.m., Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 17:23, Dylan Baker wrote:
>
>> Personally speaking, I think that better next steps for gitlab integration
>> are:
>> - migrate from bugzilla to gitlab issues
>
> This is currently held up by a mutual death grip: both AMD and
Hi all,
Thanks for the CC. I'm on a sabbatical until mid-January; I'll be
around but not following the lists/etc as actively as before. Please
feel free to liberally CC me (on this address, not work) or poke me on
IRC if there's something I should see or could contribute to. I'll
have limited time
Eric Engestrom writes:
> On Wednesday, 2018-11-28 13:36:29 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Jordan Justen writes:
>>
>> > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
>> > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
>> >
>> > We still require all patches to be ema
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:37 AM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:30 AM Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > We have enough stubborn people on the list that MRs are going to
> constantly get pulled back to the list just because someone doesn't want to
> use the web interface.
>
> A couple
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:30 AM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> We have enough stubborn people on the list that MRs are going to constantly
> get pulled back to the list just because someone doesn't want to use the web
> interface.
A couple of people in this thread have now made similar claims, but
th
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:11 AM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 17:13 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
> >
> > We still require all patches to be emailed.
>
On Wednesday, 2018-11-28 13:36:29 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Jordan Justen writes:
>
> > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
> >
> > We still require all patches to be emailed.
> >
> > Aside from the pote
On Thursday, 2018-11-29 10:11:22 +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 17:13 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
> >
> > We still require all patches to be ema
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 17:13 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
>
> We still require all patches to be emailed.
>
> Aside from the potential usage for code review comments, it m
Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2018-11-28 11:30:32)
> Yes, but the point is that we (the reviewers) know that we're conflicting.
> That's very different from what I could easily see happening *a lot* were ML
> reviewer A is perfectly happy with some bit of code but MR reviewer B asks for
> it to be compl
Quoting Jordan Justen (2018-11-28 10:21:13)
> On 2018-11-28 09:22:35, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Matt Turner (2018-11-27 19:20:09)
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > > > optional
Jordan Justen writes:
> This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
>
> We still require all patches to be emailed.
>
> Aside from the potential usage for code review comments, it might also
> help reviewers to find
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:16 PM Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-28 10:14:49, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:35 AM Jordan Justen
> > wrote:
> > > On 2018-11-28 06:59:42, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 2018-11-27 19:45:50 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > > > > On
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:16 PM Jordan Justen
wrote:
> On 2018-11-28 10:14:49, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:35 AM Jordan Justen <
> jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 2018-11-28 06:59:42, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 2018-11-27 19:45:50 -0800, Jord
On 2018-11-28 10:14:49, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:35 AM Jordan Justen
> wrote:
> > On 2018-11-28 06:59:42, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 2018-11-27 19:45:50 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > > > On 2018-11-27 19:20:09, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Discuss
On 2018-11-28 09:22:35, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Matt Turner (2018-11-27 19:20:09)
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
> > >
>
First off, +1 to experimenting with MRs. I've been working with GitLab MRs
in another context for some time and I think the process actually works out
really pretty well. There are issues, of course, but I don't think there's
any real show-stoppers as long as we have a bit of process around it su
On 2018-11-28 06:59:42, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2018-11-27 19:45:50 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > On 2018-11-27 19:20:09, Matt Turner wrote:
> > >
> > > Discussion point: I think attempting to have simultaneous review in
> > > two places is a recipe for wasted time.
> >
> > That's p
Quoting Matt Turner (2018-11-27 19:20:09)
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen
> wrote:
> >
> > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
> >
> > We still require all patches to be emailed.
> >
> > As
On Tuesday, 2018-11-27 19:45:50 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2018-11-27 19:20:09, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:45 PM Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-27 19:20:09, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patc
On 2018-11-27 19:20:09, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen
> wrote:
> >
> > This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> > optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
> >
> > We still require all patches to be emailed.
> >
> > A
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> This documents a mechanism for using GitLab Merge Requests as an
> optional, secondary way to get code reviews for patchsets.
>
> We still require all patches to be emailed.
>
> Aside from the potential usage for code review comments, it mig
25 matches
Mail list logo
