Very helpfully, that document now has GitLab issue numbers. I just pinged the one about the discussions tab.
One issue in that document that doesn't have a GitLab Issue number is "Issue 5: Prioritising numbers". Ben (or others who have interfaced with GL central): has this been reported upstream? I'm reluctant to do so without the context of our collaboration. Thanks, Richard > On Jun 6, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree. It's frustrating. > > I spent quite a bit of effort distilling ideas to help make GitLab better > here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sdGlDJSTiBZSH6kBU5pyn1HASE9XFqQhzILcYcH1QJQ/edit?usp=sharing > > We shared those ideas with them, and I believe they promised to think about > them. I think would be reasonable to ask them politely whether they see any > merit in them, whether there is any chance they might get implemented, and > whether they would be willing to engage in a dialogue with us about them. > > Issue #1 is by far the most important. > > Richard: you might want to elaborate the document with any new problems you > have now uncovered. > > Simon > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: ghc-devs <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Richard > | Eisenberg > | Sent: 06 June 2019 20:34 > | To: Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <[email protected]> > | Subject: reviewing on GitLab > | > | Hi all, > | > | I've just reviewed !364, and it was a painful experience. Perhaps > | documenting why will help spur more UI innovations. > | > | - My review was in response to several of the author's in-line comments, > | which themselves were in response to previous in-line comments. This has > | to be a common scenario. > | > | - The *only* place I could get a simple listing of all the new comments > | was in my notification email. Neither the Discussion tab nor the Changes > | tab on GitLab allow me to collect recent comments, as they new comments > | are placed directly below the old comments, each of which started at > | different points in time. > | > | - The Discussions tab has all the comments somewhere. But for each > | comment, I had to search (with Ctrl+F) on the page to find the > | corresponding comment trail, so I could get context. The order on the > | Discussions tab was unrelated to the order in my email. > | > | - Actually, not all comments were on the Discussions page, because the > | commit author had *resolved* a discussion. In this case, though, I still > | wanted to comment. So I had to search (with Ctrl+F) for "resolved" so I > | could find the comment trail and unresolve it. > | > | - The Changes page has much more code context than the Discussions page. > | So I had that open, too, so I could scroll through the code. Not all the > | comments appeared on the Changes page, because the most interesting, most > | important files are always hidden by default. Even after expanding the > | relevant files, the comment trails did not always appear. Perhaps 30 > | seconds wasn't enough waiting. > | > | - All this means that this was my workflow: > | 1. Scroll through my notification email to see the author's next > | comment. > | 2. Ctrl+F with the text of that comment to find it on the Discussion > | tab. (Ctrl+F for "resolved" if the first search fails.) > | 3. If necessary, then use the line numbers and source file names from > | the Discussions tab to find the the relevant code in the Changes tab... > | which were often offset by a few lines, as things churn. > | > | I needed three windows open to complete a fairly simple review! > | > | I believe this is easy to fix: make the Discussions tab *chronological*. > | And have a link from the comment on the Discussions page to the Changes > | page that warps you to just the right spot in the code, with the full > | commentary context. (Right now, the link from the Discussions page just > | brings you to the file in the Changes page, not the line.) > | > | I know this isn't the first time we've suggested this or complained, but > | I'm not aware of progress (or even "it's on our queue") from GitLab. Has > | that happened? Is there a way to prioritize this? This review process is > | really a drag! > | > | Many thanks, > | Richard > | _______________________________________________ > | ghc-devs mailing list > | [email protected] > | http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
