Thanks, Ben, for this summary. I am happy to wait for a resolution -- as long as there is some hope that waiting will not be in vain. This email indeed gives me this hope.
And, for the record, I agree that the merge-train support should be significantly higher priority. The whole merge scenario has caused much more trouble than a poor UI for reviewing. Thanks! Richard > On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:28 PM, Ben Gamari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Simon and I had a discussion with James Ramsey, a project manager with > GitLab, around Simon's document a few months ago. They identified their > first priority as work on merge queue infrastructure (another request of > ours, although it's not on Simon's list); this work is tracked as > gitlab-ee#9186 and a version of it will be shipped in GitLab 12.0, next > month's release. > > James made it clear that another of his priorities for this year was to > look at the current discussion interface and try to mitigate the sorts > of problems that we are encountering. Simon proposed that the situation > could be improved by presenting comments chronologically. James found > this to be an interesting suggestion and said he would add it to his > bucket of ideas. > > With respect to timing: There were understandably no concrete timelines > given. James said that work on the discussion model would likely only > happen in the second half of the year (which we are now just entering). > Since then work on the merge train infrastructure has progressed a bit > more slower than expected, so I suspect things may happen a bit later > than expected. Moreover, neither gitlab-org&855 nor gitlab-ce#56481 have > milestones yet so I expect the timescale is at least on the order of > several months, unfortunately.
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
