Manuel M T Chakravarty <c...@justtesting.org> writes: > Hi Ben, > ... > > Given that large organisations work with large code bases on GitHub, I > am still puzzled why GHC somehow cannot do that. (I do understand that > the dev process that has been established within GHC is naturally > focused around Phabricator and its tools. However, that doesn’t mean > it couldn’t be changed to work as well as before, but with another > tool.) > > In any case, I think, you didn’t mention one of the options we did > discuss previously, namely to use GitHub together with a service that > adds more sophisticated code review functionality, such as > > https://reviewable.io <https://reviewable.io/> > Some of the issues I list with GitHub are entirely orthogonal to GitHub's code review tool.
While Rust has shown that large open-source projects can use GitHub, they have also demonstrated that it requires a remarkable amount of automation (I counted three distinct bots in use on the first random pull request I opened). In my own discussions with Rust-lang maintainers they have noted that even with this tooling they are still somewhat unhappy with the amount of manual busywork working within GitHub requires. More generally, I think the move to CircleCI in a way underscores why I'm a bit hesitant to move to another silo. While it generally does "just work", there have been several cases where I have had to have multi-week interactions CircleCI support to work through inscrutable build issues. Moreover, we continue to be bit by the inability to prioritize jobs and, despite efforts, still have no ability to build for non-Linux/amd64 platforms. Consequently I'm rather skittish about moving to another platform where we have limited insight into issues, no influence over direction of development, and no ability to fix bugs where necessary. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs