On Monday, May 5, 2014, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, so I'm sorry if this information is duplicated anywhere, but between > the Project Management Tools review page, the Phabricator RFC, the various > sub-pages of the RFC, and the content on the Phabricator instance itself, > it would take me at least a couple of hours to organize my thoughts.
This is perfectly understandable. In just 2-3 weeks there has been an explosion of content in addition to all the content that was compiled before the RfC. There is a high % of signal, not much noise. Things will evetually settle. I created https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator/versus_Bugzillato consolidate the relevant information for bug reporters. It would be useful to do the same for code contributors and reviewers, but I'm not qualified. Any volunteers? > So I'll just ask directly: > Phabricator still does not work directly with Git, right? Or has that been > implemented since I last checked? If not, what is the planned workaround > for Phabricator? Relevant discussion at Find way to use Differential with plain git (i.e.: without requiring arc) http://fab.wmflabs.org/T207 > The default workflow is to use arcanist to merge the code > into Git directly. Does that handle merge conflicts? What is the rebase > process? > > It's not that I'm opposed to the new system. I'm just confused as to what > the new workflow would actually be. -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
