On 5/2/20 4:29 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > Hi all, > > Arch Linux is setting up its own Gitlab instance. I have been playing > around with it for the day and I think pacman should transition there. > > Note: the current pacman repo on the Arch Gitlab is a playground I have > been using. It will be deleted. > > There are some features that are of interest: > - CI on merge requests, which will catch build issues automatically. > - Review where I can easily see what changed on resubmission > - integrated bug tracker, patchwork, ... meaning I spend less time > updating things on multiple sites. > > We can also do things like provide regular developers a namespace. e.g. > I would own allan/* branches, and could prepare work and request merges > from branches there. > > > So how would we proceed? > > Bugs: > Do we pick a date where we disable new bug submissions on the current > tracker and point towards gitlab? Are old bug transferred after some > ruthless trimming - I don't think this can be automated... Do we leave > it open until all bugs get closed? > > Patchwork: > The got "cleared" somewhat recently, when an update occurred. At bit of > effort could followup al the changes needed that never were done and > clear this out. > > Mailing list: > New patches would no longer appear here. I don't know how much we can > get gitlab to report to the mailing list, or if we even want to. The > mailing list would still serve as a good place to discuss feature > implementation in a more public way.
I know that you're supposed to be able to email patches to a gitlab address and have it generate a merge request. Not sure how notifications the other way work, if at all. I'd quite like to have, at a minimum, a post-receive notification to the mailing list like we currently have... If we don't allow absolutely anyone to create an account on our gitlab instance, then they cannot report bugs, or submit patches (even by email, it's a private email address tied to your account). IIRC devops were not eager to enable public account creation for various reasons. > Date: > What is a good time for all this to happen? Once Anatol's parallel > downloads patches are fully committed, I'd like to make a 6.0.0beta1 > release to get some good coverage on these changes. Could we move at > the same time? > > Let me have opinions. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
