On Fri, 2019-01-25 at 13:26 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Rob Clark writes:
>
> > I guess as discovered with
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/47 maybe we
> > should wait to turn on merging MRs via web until we have at least some
> > basic build-test CI wired up.. the
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 12:10:42 +0100
apinheiro wrote:
>
> On 11/1/19 18:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get
> > automatically applied as part of the merging process. This makes
> > merging a bit more manual than it needs to be but is really no
On Monday, 2019-01-28 14:29:00 -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> 2. I've seen a bunch of things land where I would have had comments
> beforehand. Once the patch is in, I don't really have an easy way to
> provide feedback. In the past if such a thing would happen, I just
> take the subject of the
On Monday, January 28, 2019 11:29:00 AM PST Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> A few thoughts. Given past experience, I don't really expect these to
> have any serious impact on the direction taken, but I also don't want
> to just sit brooding in silence. Please note that full time/paid
> contributors probably
On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 17:20 -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:29 PM Ilia Mirkin
> wrote:
> > 2. I've seen a bunch of things land where I would have had comments
> > beforehand. Once the patch is in, I don't really have an easy way
> > to
> > provide feedback. In the past if such
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:29 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> A few thoughts. Given past experience, I don't really expect these to
> have any serious impact on the direction taken, but I also don't want
> to just sit brooding in silence. Please note that full time/paid
> contributors probably have a
A few thoughts. Given past experience, I don't really expect these to
have any serious impact on the direction taken, but I also don't want
to just sit brooding in silence. Please note that full time/paid
contributors probably have a different view of things than volunteer
contributors. There's
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:33 PM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Rob Clark wrote:
> > (Hmm, I guess I should take a look at what sort of API gitlab offers,
> > but that will probably have to wait until after the branchpoint.. tbh
> > I'd actually be pretty happy w/ a
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Rob Clark wrote:
> (Hmm, I guess I should take a look at what sort of API gitlab offers,
> but that will probably have to wait until after the branchpoint.. tbh
> I'd actually be pretty happy w/ a gitlab equiv of 'git pw as -s' for
> merging things from
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:26 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
>
> Rob Clark writes:
>
> > I guess as discovered with
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/47 maybe we
> > should wait to turn on merging MRs via web until we have at least some
> > basic build-test CI wired up.. the
Rob Clark writes:
> I guess as discovered with
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/47 maybe we
> should wait to turn on merging MRs via web until we have at least some
> basic build-test CI wired up.. the downside is slower 'maintainer'
> response (if I am working on some
On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 14:47 +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Thursday, 2019-01-17 15:55:44 +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > It could have been made obvious for instance by showing the commit-
> > graph next to the commit-list, decorating it with the branch head
> > in
> > one end and clear
I guess as discovered with
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/47 maybe we
should wait to turn on merging MRs via web until we have at least some
basic build-test CI wired up.. the downside is slower 'maintainer'
response (if I am working on some long running branch I tend to
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:01:46AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Friday, 2019-01-11 09:50:25 -0800, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho wrote:
> [snip]
> > - To find the discussion associated with a commit in master, I'd
> > search the title in the mailing list archives. With MRs, the usual
> >
On Thursday, 2019-01-17 15:55:44 +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> It could have been made obvious for instance by showing the commit-
> graph next to the commit-list, decorating it with the branch head in
> one end and clear continuation in the other.
I'd love that, it would really help a lot!
On Friday, 2019-01-11 09:50:25 -0800, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho wrote:
[snip]
> - To find the discussion associated with a commit in master, I'd
> search the title in the mailing list archives. With MRs, the usual
> way that this connection is made would be the reference to the MR as
>
On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 08:38 +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 10:57 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still
> > open).
> > I (and I'm sure others) would be curious to hear people's initial
> > thoughts on the
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:07 PM Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 16:35, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On January 17, 2019 08:58:03 Erik Faye-Lund <
> erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> wrote:
> > > Whoops! I meant to say something like "we'd need to be able to
> > > distinguis
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 07:21 -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > > 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 16:35, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On January 17, 2019 08:58:03 Erik Faye-Lund
> wrote:
> > Whoops! I meant to say something like "we'd need to be able to
> > distinguis between CI steps that are triggered due to new MRs versus
> > updated MRs, or pushes to existing
On January 17, 2019 08:58:03 Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 14:37 +, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 07:38, Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
1. New MRs should probably get their cover-letter automatically
sent to
the mailing list for incrased visibility.
[...]
I
On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 14:37 +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 07:38, Erik Faye-Lund
> wrote:
> > 1. New MRs should probably get their cover-letter automatically
> > sent to
> > the mailing list for incrased visibility.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I don't think any of these
On Thu, 2019-01-17 at 10:00 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2019-01-17 8:38 a.m., Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > 3. There's some browsing-pain with the commit list. For instance, I
> > always second-guess if the latest commit is at the top or bottom.
>
> At the top, same as in all Git related tools
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 07:38, Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
> 1. New MRs should probably get their cover-letter automatically sent to
> the mailing list for incrased visibility.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think any of these issues are show-stoppers from moving
> entirely to MRs, though. Perhaps issue #1
On 1/17/19 12:32 PM, apinheiro wrote:
On 17/1/19 9:39, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:38:05 PM PST Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 10:57 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
All,
The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still open).
I (and I'm
On 17/1/19 9:39, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:38:05 PM PST Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 10:57 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
All,
The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still open).
I (and I'm sure others) would be curious to hear
On 2019-01-17 8:38 a.m., Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>
> 3. There's some browsing-pain with the commit list. For instance, I
> always second-guess if the latest commit is at the top or bottom.
At the top, same as in all Git related tools I've seen.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer |
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:38:05 PM PST Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 10:57 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still open).
> > I (and I'm sure others) would be curious to hear people's initial
> > thoughts
On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 10:57 -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> All,
>
> The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still open).
> I (and I'm sure others) would be curious to hear people's initial
> thoughts on the process. What's working well? What's not working?
> Is it total fail
On 16/01/2019 14:01, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 13:01, Lionel Landwerlin
wrote:
- It seems we only get notifications when adding to an MR, I could like to
subscribe to particular tags
If you go to https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/labels/ then you
can subscribe to
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 13:01, Lionel Landwerlin
wrote:
> - It seems we only get notifications when adding to an MR, I could like to
> subscribe to particular tags
If you go to https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/labels/ then you
can subscribe to things per-label. That applies to both
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:51 PM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 20:22, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 7:40 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > My question would again be what value that brings you. Do you just
> > > like seeing the name there, or do you go poke
- I'm pretty happy with the discussion on a particular point/location of
a change.
A lot more readable than a long chain of email.
- Having issues with the comments not always showing up on a particular
commit of an MR (but it looks like gitlab is aware of that issue)
- The Rb/Ab tags were
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 23:47, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:36 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get automatically
> > > applied as part of the merging process. This
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:36 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get automatically
> > applied as part of the merging process. This makes merging a bit more
> > manual than it needs
Hey,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 20:22, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 7:40 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
> > My question would again be what value that brings you. Do you just
> > like seeing the name there, or do you go poke the people on IRC, or
> > follow up via email, or ... ? Again I
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 7:40 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 12:21, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli wrote:
> > > On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand
> > > > wrote:
> > > > In
Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2019-01-15 11:57:01)
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:52 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
>
> Daniel Stone writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 12:21, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli
> wrote:
> >> > On
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:52 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
> Daniel Stone writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 12:21, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli
> wrote:
> >> > On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason
I noticed that gitlab breaks formatting of . It
removes < and >, and converts the address to a hyperlink. I can preserve
the formatting by enclosing the comment in ` ... `.
Marek
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:52 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
> Daniel Stone writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at
Daniel Stone writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 12:21, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli wrote:
>> > On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand
>> > > wrote:
>> > > In other projects, we looked for ways to
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 12:21, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli wrote:
> > On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > In other projects, we looked for ways to apply the tags and ended up
> > >
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Tapani Pälli wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >> 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get automatically
> >> applied as part of the merging process.
On 15/1/19 7:01, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>
>
> On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand
>> wrote:
>>> 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get
>>> automatically applied as part of the merging process. This makes
>>> merging
On 1/14/19 2:36 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get automatically
applied as part of the merging process. This makes merging a bit more manual
than it needs to be but is really no
There are still people who don't look at the merge requests in gitlab yet,
like me. :) I've noticed there are fewer emails... I'll switch after you
guys figure out whether MRs are better.
Marek
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:36 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason
Quoting Axel Davy (2019-01-12 09:40:40)
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure the promise "1 mail per pull request" is working well.
> For example, taking one recent pull request
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/105
>
> I didn't receive anything, nor
>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:36:26PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> FWIW, if you go to
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/SHA1 then you get a
> hyperlink from the web UI which points you to the MR. The API to do
> this is pretty straightforward and amenable to piping through jq:
>
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> 5. There's no way with gitlab for Reviewed-by tags to get automatically
> applied as part of the merging process. This makes merging a bit more manual
> than it needs to be but is really no worse than it was before.
I'm still on the
To be honest I have mixed feelings about using Gitlab merge requests. As
Jason mentions bellow the discussions feature is a nice way to avoid the
mess that can happen with mailings list replys.
However I seem to find myself fighting with the interface more that
should be necessary. Most of
Hi,
I'm not sure the promise "1 mail per pull request" is working well.
For example, taking one recent pull request
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/105
I didn't receive anything, nor
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2019-January/thread.html
yet.
I
I mostly agree with your thoughts below. Will add some additional
comments inline.
On 11/1/19 18:05, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> I'm putting my own thoughts in a reply for some reason. Here's what
> I've seen.
>
> 1. I really like GitLab "discussions". It provides a very good way
> for both the
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:57:16AM -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> All,
>
> The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still open). I
> (and I'm sure others) would be curious to hear people's initial thoughts on
> the process. What's working well? What's not working? Is it total
I haven't played with merge requests yet, except for reviewing some
small RADV patches from Bas.
From my point of view, the main problem now is that we have to look
both at the mailing list and at the merge requests page and that's quite
annoying.
I don't think it's really a win to have two
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:23 AM Danylo Piliaiev
wrote:
> My small thoughts/questions:
>
> - First of all discussions are really much more convenient.
> - Several (mine) merge requests were "Closed" and merged (not just merged,
> they are under "Closed" category), am I missing something?
>
It
Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2019-01-11 09:05:21)
> I'm putting my own thoughts in a reply for some reason. Here's what I've
> seen.
>
> 1. I really like GitLab "discussions". It provides a very good way for both
> the author and the reviewers to keep track of what review comments have been
>
My small thoughts/questions:
- First of all discussions are really much more convenient.
- Several (mine) merge requests were "Closed" and merged (not just
merged, they are under "Closed" category), am I missing something?
- Is there a way to grant rights to creator of merge request to
I'm putting my own thoughts in a reply for some reason. Here's what I've
seen.
1. I really like GitLab "discussions". It provides a very good way for
both the author and the reviewers to keep track of what review comments
have been dealt with and what comments are still outstanding.
2.
All,
The mesa project has now hit 100 merge requests (36 are still open). I
(and I'm sure others) would be curious to hear people's initial thoughts on
the process. What's working well? What's not working? Is it total fail
and should we go back to mailing lists?
--Jason
59 matches
Mail list logo
