Hi Daniel, I will be happy to use MRs over emails.
Best regards Emre Ucan Engineering Software Base (ADITG/ESB) Tel. +49 5121 49 6937 > -----Original Message----- > From: wayland-devel [mailto:wayland-devel- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Stone > Sent: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2018 12:34 > To: Erik De Rijcke <[email protected]> > Cc: wayland <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Migrating Wayland & Weston to GitLab > > Hi Erik, > > On 31 May 2018 at 09:36, Erik De Rijcke <[email protected]> wrote: > > First of all I'd like to say that the move to Gitlab makes me really happy > > \o/! It will definitely lower the contribution barrier for a lot of people > > (including me!) as things are now far more accessible, visible and overall > > easier to manage. > > > > Which brings me to a remark/question on how merge requests are done. Is > > there any plan to allow/move merge requests to Gitlab? Having a central > > point of all things code related would really make things clear and visible, > > and overall easier to contribute. > > Being able to utilize Gitlab, manage your account, create your own fork and > > then having to do a git-send-email would really defeat the point of the > > whole move to Gitlab imho. > > > > Anyway, just my 2 cents. Very glad to see this Gitlab thing moving forward! > > Personally, I'd like to use MRs for at least Weston development. I'm > much happier reviewing them there than mail, and although the workflow > isn't perfect, mail certainly isn't either. > > Some other people said they preferred a mail workflow for > wayland-protocols. That does make a little more sense to me, though if > Weston moves to GitLab, then it would make wayland-protocols the odd > one out for protocol development: AGL using Gerrit review, > Enlightenment/EFL using Phabricator review, GENIVI using Gerrit > review, Mutter/GTK+ using GNOME GitLab MRs, KDE using Phabricator > review, Qt using Gerrit review, Tizen using a mix of Gerrit and > Phabricator, Weston using fd.o GitLab MRs, and wlc/wlroots using > GitHub review. But our volume of protocol review is small enough that > it's probably not a massive deal. > > Similarly, I have a preference for using MRs for the core Wayland > repo, but again we don't have a super high volume of patches right > now. > > Using MRs would also allow us to hook up CI pipelines so we could get > fast feedback on whether the basic build and checks succeeded, which I > think is pretty helpful given the number of times we've broken > distcheck lately. > > What do others think? > > Cheers, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
