El diumenge, 9 de juny de 2019, a les 20:44:34 CEST, Tobias Deiminger va escriure: > Am 09.06.2019 12:13 schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > > El diumenge, 9 de juny de 2019, a les 11:06:43 CEST, Tobias Deiminger > > va escriure: > >> Am 08.06.2019 11:22 schrieb Albert Astals Cid: > >> > How would you feel if we moved to invent.kde.org now instead of > >> > waiting for the final migration? > >> > >> If that means we'll gain a pure gitlab workflow (merge requests, > >> issues, > >> CI), I'd like it, the sooner the better. > > > > No issues, bugzilla is here to stay. > > > > CI is still being discussed, as far as i understand build.kde.org is > > still the way to go, which shold be fine, it works just fine for us. > > kdenlive has per MR CI builds, e.g.: > https://invent.kde.org/thompsony/kdenlive/-/jobs/8072 > > Will we get that too? (guess it can be complementary to what > build.kde.org does)
I don't see why we would not be able to get something that kdenlive has. > > > So this is basically more about MR (and the fact that you can easily > > fork and thus have branches on "your own repo" where you can force > > push) > > Good thing. > > Branches on private clones could also be a good fit for GSoC. > Our last years approach to let phabricator track a GSoC branch > in the central repository caused quite some confusion. That's my main aim. Cheers, Albert > > >> > >> Are there downsides? > >> > >> > The bigger chance would be that "future" code reviews would be done > >> > through gitlab instead of through phabricator. > >> > >> What about phabricator reviews that are currently in progress, are > >> there > >> conversion scripts or will we have to resubmit them as MRs? > > > > They can stay AFAIK. I mean as far as i understand you can put > > "anything you want" in phabricator, so if the git repository moves > > somewhere else it doesn't really matter. > > After all, and if migration doesn't mean additional load on your side, > I'd still vote for doing it. > > Cheers > Tobias >