> https://phab.qadevel-stg.cloud.fedoraproject.org/ > > The hosting does work over ssh, but I'm noticing some quirks > - the ssh urls are displayed incorrectly. This may be fixed in the > latest upstream (the version we're using is several weeks old) but > I haven't checked yet. For the dummy repo I created: > * shown: > ssh://phab.qadevel-stg.cloud.fedoraproject.org/diffusion/PON/ > * actual thing to clone if you want it to succeed: > g...@phab.qadevel-stg.cloud.fedoraproject.org:diffusion/PON > > - http hosting doesn't work yet. I have some more tweaking to do in > order to get that functional but it's do-able
Does this mean that phab repos can't be accessed publicly at this moment? What about public git:// access, is that supported/working? Does the http hosting require fixing some bugs, or is it purely a configuration issue? > > - The repo names are ... weird. I understand why they end up like they > do, but I was hoping the uris would contain the repo name, not the > callsign. That's a bit unfortunate. Does it mean that we need to differentiate all our repos by 4-letter access codes? That would also mean that people cloning the repos need either provide a reasonable name to the git clone command, or they'll end up with cryptic directory names for our projects. > > The setup is pretty straightforward and doesn't really mess with the > git hosting itself - just injects phabricator into the ssh auth > mechanism in a similar way to how gitolite works. If we did > decide to go this route for code hosting and something did go > horribly wrong, we have backups of the raw repos and it would be > pretty easy to resurrect them outside of phabricator. > > Another feature that I haven't looked at much is mirroring - you can > configure repos to push commits to a remote repository. The advantage > here is that we could have the canonical upstream under our control and > have bitbucket/github mirrors that other folks could use to create > diffs from. This might be a very good idea. We can use our system while the public can easily find and access our code, fork it, send a pull request. Or, if we find git hosting in Phab unsatisfactory, we can do it the other way round - host code on Github/Bitbucket and clone to Phab (if it helps something, for example reviews). When it comes to Github/Bitbucket choice, I played with them a bit and both seem pretty equal. They are closed-source, they support teams, and because we won't need issue tracking there's not many other differences. Only Github is more popular and more people have an account there, so I think that would be the only reason to pick Github over Bitbucket. _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel