It appears as if gitlab went down again, this time since around 4AM UTC on
Monday.
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 9:49 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> Moritz Angermann writes:
>
> > Just a heads up everyone. Gitlab appears down again. This seemed to have
> > happened around Sunday, 4AM UTC
Davean has resurrected gitlab for now.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:31 PM Moritz Angermann <
moritz.angerm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears as if gitlab went down again, this time since around 4AM UTC on
> Monday.
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 9:49 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
>
Hi devs,
I've frequently wanted to attach a summary note to a review, unattached to any
line of code. I thought this was impossible, but I see how to do it now.
After making your review, with perhaps many line comments, go back to the
Overview pane. Then, you can write a comment at the bottom,
Ben Gamari writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I will be starting the GitLab upgrade shortly. Expect approximately 30
> minutes of downtime.
>
The service is back up temporarily but currently performing background
migrations, which are taking longer than expected. There will be two
more p
Ben Gamari writes:
> Ben Gamari writes:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I will be starting the GitLab upgrade shortly. Expect approximately 30
>> minutes of downtime.
>>
> The service is back up temporarily but currently performing background
> migrations, wh
GitLab is again up and churning through the next round of migrations which is
yet again taking quite a bit longer than expected. I will need to arrange
another r short outage tomorrow to finish the final phase of the upgrade but it
will remain up and usable until then.
Cheers,
- Ben
On June
Hello all,
As noted yesterday, there is one final (hopefully short!) outage needed
to complete the upgrade process. This will begin in around 20 minutes,
at 20:00 EST. I'll notify the list when it has finished.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Hello all,
GitLab is back up and is fully upgraded. You may now continue with your
usual business.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman
-- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/jobs/1224391
>
>
> 2.
>
> ERROR: Job failed: failed to pull image
> "registry.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/gitlab-runner-helper:x86_64-v15.0.0"
>
> -- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/jobs/1224641
>
> Moritz, can you
l update failed
-- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/jobs/1224391
2.
ERROR: Job failed: failed to pull image
"registry.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/gitlab-runner-helper:x86_64-v15.0.0"
-- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/jobs/1224641
Moritz, can you look into these?
Coul
ge list from hackage.haskell.org
> > Version of /root.json is less than the previous version
> > /usr/local/bin/cabal update --index=2020-12-21T14:48:20Z failed
> > error: cabal update failed
> >
> > -- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/jobs/1224391
> &g
Hello again,
After a few surprises, I have finished my migration.
Unfortunately, CI IS STILL BROKEN.
All CI runners disabled themselves while GitLab was in maintenance
mode. (That's not very helpful, but never mind.)
As I do not have the access or privileges required to restart the
ru
The zw3rk runners should be back.
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 17:41, Bryan Richter via ghc-devs <
ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> After a few surprises, I have finished my migration.
>
> Unfortunately, CI IS STILL BROKEN.
>
> All CI runners disabled the
I can confirm that! Great!
[Attached screenshot shows runners online in the GitLab Runners Admin UI]
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:49 AM Moritz Angermann
wrote:
>
> The zw3rk runners should be back.
>
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 17:41, Bryan Richter via ghc-devs
> wrote:
&g
Jobs are getting picked up, but now it looks like they are failing to
upload artifacts. I am looking into it now.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:51 AM Bryan Richter wrote:
>
> I can confirm that! Great!
>
> [Attached screenshot shows runners online in the GitLab Runners Admin UI]
>
&
it now.
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:51 AM Bryan Richter
> wrote:
> >
> > I can confirm that! Great!
> >
> > [Attached screenshot shows runners online in the GitLab Runners Admin UI]
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:49 AM Moritz Angerma
Hi Bryan (I assume),
I noticed that a small number of Gitlab notification emails end up in
my spamfilter. While there is not much you can do about triggering some
bayesian style spam filter at my email provider (mailbox.org), I did
notice this in the headers:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.704
Hello,
This is the first (and, perhaps, last[1]) monthly update on GitLab CI. This
month in particular deserves its own little email for the following reasons:
1. Some of the Darwin runners recently spontaneously self-upgraded,
introducing toolchain changes that broke CI. All the fixes are now
Ben Gamari writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I will be performing a GitLab upgrade later this evening (likely around
> 18:00 EDT). I expect this will take only a few minutes.
>
The upgrade is complete.
As always, let me know if anything looks amiss.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
D
sion. I have been reluctant to formally announce the
> cut-over until CI is green but this has taken a fair bit longer than
> anticipated due to the long CI cycle time. Nevertheless people have
> started submitting MRs against the GitLab instance and you are more than
> welcome to do so.
we still do have access to due to memory and build time
constraints. It appears that this may be the cause of the failures in
your build (1).
This billing change was the reason why I have been moving our CI
infrastructure to GitLab. Unfortunately in the chaos it looks like I
neglected to fo
s to due to memory and build time
> constraints. It appears that this may be the cause of the failures in
> your build (1).
>
> This billing change was the reason why I have been moving our CI
> infrastructure to GitLab. Unfortunately in the chaos it looks like I
> neglected to forward th
Sadly GHC builds do not reliably finish
>> on the instances we still do have access to due to memory and build time
>> constraints. It appears that this may be the cause of the failures in
>> your build (1).
>>
>> This billing change was the reason why I have been m
Gabor Greif writes:
> (following-up own mail)
>
> This seems resolved too. I have submitted my branch into the main
> repo, and now the pipeline is executing :-)
>
> Still, do we want running pipelines for external contributors too?
>
Indeed we do. Small oversight on my part; now fixed.
Thanks!
Yeah, it starts now, thanks!
However it won't terminate due to a restrictive time limit of 60 mins.
Can we have 120?
Gabor
On 12/22/18, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Gabor Greif writes:
>
>> (following-up own mail)
>>
>> This seems resolved too. I have submitted my branch into the main
>> repo, and
Gabor, you can configure this yourself.
1. Go to https://gitlab.haskell.org/ggreif/ghc/settings/ci_cd
2. Expand the top drop-down "General pipelines"
3. Set the timeout to 6h
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 2:30 PM Gabor Greif wrote:
>
> Yeah, it starts now, thanks!
>
> However it won't terminate due to
Gabor Greif writes:
> Yeah, it starts now, thanks!
>
> However it won't terminate due to a restrictive time limit of 60 mins.
> Can we have 120?
>
I have actually changed the default to six hours since Windows builds tend
to easily eat through three hours at least. I've made this change on
your f
Richard Eisenberg writes:
> Hi devs,
>
> With our new GitLab workflow, will commit messages still be posted to
> Issues (once the migration is complete)? That's been really useful
> with Trac.
>
GitLab does not post the commit message to the issues it mentions. It
do
It's **super-helpful** that the Trac ticket includes, as a comment, the
commit(s) that fixed it. Please can this happen with Gitlab too?
Otherwise, when looking at the ticket two years later there is literally no
clue what commit (if any) fixed it.
If it can't be done automatically,
I really don't think we should emulate trac's behaviour here.
As from now all patches will be merged via gitlab it is unnecessary as
related merge requests show up visually on each ticket and when a
patch is merge the ticket is automatically closed. Ticket numbers
mentioned in commits a
Hi,
I just tried to use GitLab CI to validate a GHC patch including changes to
Haddock: https://gitlab.haskell.org/sjakobi/ghc/pipelines/842
The problem is that the CI script tries to find my Haddock commit at
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/haddock. But that repo doesn't even allow
merge re
I second Simon's "super-helpful". But we don't need to exactly copy Trac's
behavior. If there is a clear link to the e.g. commit with message, that's fine
too.
> On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:47 AM, Matthew Pickering
> wrote:
>
> As from now all patches will
; Ben Gamari
; GHC
Subject: Re: GitLab cross-posting to Trac?
I second Simon's "super-helpful". But we don't need to exactly copy Trac's
behavior. If there is a clear link to the e.g. commit with message, that's fine
too.
On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:47 AM, Matthew Pi
Simon Peyton Jones writes:
> It's **super-helpful** that the Trac ticket includes, as a comment,
> the commit(s) that fixed it. Please can this happen with Gitlab too?
>
> Otherwise, when looking at the ticket two years later there is
> literally no clue what commit (if an
> We're not using GitLab ticketing yet, but I understand we will. When you say
> "related merge requests", does that include *issues*? GitHub does this, so I
> imagine it does, but we should make sure. In other words, if we make an MR
> that references an issue, wi
>> wrote:
>>
>> As from now all patches will be merged via gitlab it is unnecessary as
>> related merge requests
>
> We're not using GitLab ticketing yet, but I understand we will. When
> you say "related merge requests", does that include *issues*?
>
Hi,
I think there's a currently a bug in "changes" tab in gitlab. If you look at [1]
it shows as if I added a new line in `Main.hs`, but actually I just changed one
word:
diff --git a/utils/genapply/Main.hs b/utils/genapply/Main.hs
index 71b84fde79..7038dc5c09 100644
Ben Gamari writes:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have started the process of migrating GHC's Trac content to GitLab.
> GitLab (gitlab.haskell.org) and Trac (ghc.haskell.org) will be down
> until this process has finished. I will post updates as necessary.
>
Hi everyone,
I'
users; GHC developers; Haskell Cafe
Subject: Re: Trac to GitLab migration underway
Ben Gamari writes:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have started the process of migrating GHC's Trac content to GitLab.
> GitLab (gitlab.haskell.org) and Trac (ghc.haskell.org) will be down
> until this
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:38 PM Ben Gamari wrote:
> Ben Gamari writes:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have started the process of migrating GHC's Trac content to GitLab.
> > GitLab (gitlab.haskell.org) and Trac (ghc.haskell.org) will be down
> > unt
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > I have started the process of migrating GHC's Trac content to GitLab.
>> > GitLab (gitlab.haskell.org) and Trac (ghc.haskell.org) will be down
>> > until this process has finished. I will post updates as necessary.
| I'm happy to announce that the ticket and issue import processes are now
| complete and gitlab.haskell.org is back online. There are still a few
| final steps remaining which I will be carrying out over the next few
| days:
Great! I'm sure it'll help to have everything in one place.
Can I
> * That the old ticket repo be put in read-only mode. I've just modified the
> old #16344, but I should have modified the new one.
That is tracked https://gitlab.haskell.org/bgamari/gitlab-migration/issues/14
It seems that there are still some problems to iron out though.
>
g MR !509" to the issue
Description. Or are you saying that that apparently-user-written line was
added by GitLab? If you have many MRs taht mention (perhaps en passant) the
same issue, will there be many such lines?
Or is it another discipline we could impose on ourselves?
Simon
| --
I wrote !509 in the ticket which then made gitlab display the "Related
Merge Request" bit underneath. I don't know what happens if you
mention a MR in a comment.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:14 AM Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
>
> | > * Back on the tickets front, how do I reco
r to the author that they need to add a test case. But I
think the issue-to-MR link is more important than the test-case field.
Thanks!
Richard
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:17 AM, Matthew Pickering
> wrote:
>
> I wrote !509 in the ticket which then made gitlab display the "Related
>
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:17 AM, Matthew Pickering <
> matthewtpicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wrote !509 in the ticket which then made gitlab display the "Related
> > Merge Request" bit underneath. I don't know what happens if you
> > mention
This old ticket might be related:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/1734
<https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/1734> It advocates for moving
numbers to the front of tab names, too. Looks like it was shut down by judgment
call. Perhaps if we raise our voices in
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 11:56 Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> This old ticket might be related:
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/1734 It advocates for
> moving numbers to the front of tab names, too. Looks like it was shut down
> by judgment call. Perhaps if we raise o
Good point -- I hadn't noticed the unfortunate phrasing of the original post.
You're right that the current focus is on email, but the tabs issue affects me,
too. In any case, let's not link to that ticket.
But before I take further action, I know that we have some side channe
t it looks like I failed
to remove a few permissions for developers which allowed further
changes. This has been fixed.
> * Back on the tickets front, how do I record the test cases(s) for a ticket?
>
This is unfortunately one of the casualties of the migration. GitLab
doesn't have
I suggest adding it to
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sdGlDJSTiBZSH6kBU5pyn1HASE9XFqQhzILcYcH1QJQ/edit?usp=sharing
which is our “GHC project wishlist for GitLab”.
But Ben may have a way to bring it up directly as well.
Simon
From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
Sent: 11 March
nt, as this is the effective summary of what's to
> follow.
>
I think we can manage that. Ideally I'd like to stay as close to an
unmodified GitLab installation as possible but this particular issue
doesn't sound like it should be a hard thing to fix.
> I'd also like to sec
take further action, I know that we have some side
> channels with GitLab, and I don't want to muddy the waters by working
> outside of those channels. If I should take further action, please let
> me know.
>
Opening a ticket is always a good first step. Generally my interactions
ed to
make a custom query.
I have done an example here:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/partial-type-signatures
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Ben Gamari
| Sent: 11 March 2019 22:37
| To: Simon Peyton Jones ; GHC developers
| Subject: RE: Trac to GitLab migration und
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 8:13 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Richard Eisenberg writes:
> For instance, consider the case of
> #16347 [1]. You will note that below the "Related issues" section there
> is a list of related merge requests (strangely formatted completely
> differently).
Aha. That's exactl
Hi all,
Question, how do I view only Windows issues? I see there is a windows tag
but nothing is linked to it. And tickets contain sporadically the "Trac
Metadata" field.
So I'm not sure how to get the same overview I used on trac.
Kind regards,
Tamar
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 18:42 Richard Eisenbe
nd a
commit that disabled it had just landed. My MR was not passing the tests because
of the test so I had to rebase.
Ömer
Iavor Diatchki , 9 May 2019 Per, 02:19
tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've just had a go at making a small MR on our new Gitlab system, and
> I am a b
It would be good to add this advice to our "how-to-contribute" pages.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Ömer Sinan
| Agacan
| Sent: 09 May 2019 07:46
| To: Iavor Diatchki
| Cc: ghc-devs
| Subject: Re: Question about Gitlab MR workflow.
I've added a blurb in the wiki page about rebasing MRs:
GitLab usually complains that "Fast-forward merge is not possible" on
your MR. If you see a green check and green "Rebase" button, NO action
is necessary: your MR will be rebased automatically on merge. If instea
David Eichmann writes:
> I've added a blurb in the wiki page about rebasing MRs:
>
Which Wiki page specifically?
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/working-conventions/fixing-bugs
On 5/9/19 3:47 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:
David Eichmann writes:
I've added a blurb in the wiki page about rebasing MRs:
Which Wiki page specifically?
- Ben
--
David Eichmann, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://ww
Message-
| From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of David Eichmann
| Sent: 09 May 2019 16:47
| To: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Question about Gitlab MR workflow.
|
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.h
| askell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fwikis%
: 09 May 2019 16:47
> | To: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org
> | Subject: Re: Question about Gitlab MR workflow.
> |
> |
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.h
> | askell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fwikis%2Fworking-conventions%2Ffixing-
strange.
> 1,2,1,1,1,2,3,4.
>
>
>
> | -Original Message-
> | From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of David Eichmann
> | Sent: 09 May 2019 16:47
> | To: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org
> | Subject: Re: Question about Gitlab MR workflow.
> |
> | https://n
Hi,
I just noticed that the gitlab upgrade has caused the approval system
to change.
Before all that was required was 1 approval from anyone.
Now, at least one approval from the default group is required (me,
Ben, Omer, Tobias, David)
I couldn't see a way to turn back to the old behaviour
theres a lot of spam repos on the gitlab :(
11:07 AM
https://gitlab.haskell.org/wandaibson/oberton-paris
https://gitlab.haskell.org/explore/projects?utf8=%E2%9C%93&name=keto&sort=latest_activity_desc
lots
of keto
11:10 AM
two CBD
11:10 AM
https://gitlab.haskell.org/explore/projects?
to our feedback. We owe some thanks to our
friends at GitLab for their responsiveness.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Hi all,
On a tip from Ben, I'm using Chrome to review a large patch (!7033 for the
curious). It is qualitatively better than Firefox, my usual tool. I will be
routinely using Chrome to review large patches from now on. You may want to,
too.
Richard
_
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 05:33:44PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I noticed that a small number of Gitlab notification emails end up in
> my spamfilter. While there is not much you can do about triggering some
> bayesian style spam filter at my email provider (mailbox.org), I did
>
Thanks for noticing, Joachim!
Ben Gamari is still the primary contact for GitLab configuration...
Ben, maybe you know something about this?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:12 PM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 05:33:44PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> > I notic
Hi Ben,
gentle reminder about this issue? I’m worried I (and maybe others) are
going to miss gitlab notifications.
Cheers,
Joachim
Am Donnerstag, dem 01.12.2022 um 10:21 +0200 schrieb Bryan Richter via
ghc-devs:
> Thanks for noticing, Joachim!
>
> Ben Gamari is still the primary co
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 03:41:21PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> gentle reminder about this issue? I’m worried I (and maybe others) are
> going to miss gitlab notifications.
A recent gitlab notice has:
Received: by gitlab.haskell.org (Postfix, from userid 165)
I am seeing a few different problems with the GitLab server right now. I am
gonna try to mitigate the issues, so the server might be unavailable for a
few short periods.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin
Hi Ben - this sounds good, a couple of questions:
- What about the performance issue we noticed last week?
- What will happen to Phabricator diffs that are still mid-review? It would
be a shame to have to move them to gitlab and interrupt the review trail.
Can't we just shut Phabricator t
Hi Ben,
in my experience Gitlab has been extremely slow at showing commit diffs to
the point that it gives up and returns a 502:
https://gitlab.staging.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/issues/15944
Is this possibly related to any resource constraints on our instance?
Cheers,
Simon
Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um
Simon Jakobi via ghc-devs writes:
> Hi Ben,
>
> in my experience Gitlab has been extremely slow at showing commit diffs to
> the point that it gives up and returns a 502:
> https://gitlab.staging.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/issues/15944
>
> Is this possibly related to any resour
ll happen to Phabricator diffs that are still mid-review? It would
> be a shame to have to move them to gitlab and interrupt the review trail.
> Can't we just shut Phabricator to new diffs but keep the possibility of
> working on existing ones?
>
Of course. That is perhaps a better
> On Dec 17, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
>
>>
>> - What will happen to Phabricator diffs that are still mid-review? It would
>> be a shame to have to move them to gitlab and interrupt the review trail.
>> Can't we just shut Phabricator to ne
Hey simon!
I actually did some digging. And it looks like currently gitlab basically
does a git diff of the two branches and does that computation on every page
reload.
1). There currently is no caching —- some of the folks on the Haskell infra
team could help perhaps but they need to be given
es are
>discussed. Let me know if you have any trouble.
>
>Also, please do verify the correctness of the email address
>associated with your Trac account in the next few weeks. It will
>be used to map users when we transition Trac tickets to GitLab.
>
>
>
&g
Hey All,
I’ve been doing a decent amount of thinking about the GitLab migration and
realised that I’d not seen any discussion of what we plan to do with all the
information in the Trac Wiki. If there has been some and I’ve missed it I
apologise.
In essence, I’m wondering what the current plan
PSA: When reviewing an MR on GitLab, every comment has two buttons: (1) add to
review, and (2) add comment now. Cmd+Enter (on my machine at least), does
option (2), even though option (1) is bold and green. This is not what I
wanted. (By the way, "comments" actually open these thi
Simon Jakobi via ghc-devs writes:
> Hi,
>
> I just tried to use GitLab CI to validate a GHC patch including changes to
> Haddock: https://gitlab.haskell.org/sjakobi/ghc/pipelines/842
>
> The problem is that the CI script tries to find my Haddock commit at
> https://gitlab.ha
fore, is that having my haddock commit in my
Gitlab fork (sjakobi/haddock) apparently also makes it accessible through
ghc/haddock.
What is my-branch in sjakobi/haddock is sjakobi/my-branch in ghc/haddock.
Cheers,
Simon
___
ghc-devs mailing list
Congrats Ben and co! This is a huge step forwards.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 06:27, Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> git remote set-url origin https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc.git
> git remote set-url --push origin g...@gitlab.haskell.org:ghc/ghc
>
> This is all that should be necessary; a quick `gi
> submodules are still pulling from git.haskell.org, is there an easy way to
> fix that?
`git submodule sync` should fix that.
Ömer
Simon Marlow , 7 Oca 2019 Pzt, 11:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>
> Congrats Ben and co! This is a huge step forwards.
>
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 06:27, Ben Gamari wro
Simon Marlow writes:
> Congrats Ben and co! This is a huge step forwards.
>
Thanks!
> submodules are still pulling from git.haskell.org, is there an easy way to
> fix that?
Indeed, Omer's advice is spot on.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ömer Sinan Ağacan writes:
> Hi,
>
> I think there's a currently a bug in "changes" tab in gitlab. If you
> look at [1] it shows as if I added a new line in `Main.hs`, but
> actually I just changed one word:
>
> diff --git a/utils/genapply/Main.hs
I would definitely appreciate changing Marge's behavior back to the old
one. As things stand currently, I am unable to approve anything that I'm
not explicitly listed as a reviewer for. See here [1] for an example of
where this has happened.
Ryan S.
-
[1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/mer
I have noticed that you can work around this by editing the Mr and adding
yourself explicitly to the approvals list for it.
It then allows you to approve it.
Sent from my Mobile
On Fri, May 17, 2019, 13:54 Ryan Scott wrote:
> I would definitely appreciate changing Marge's behavior back to the
To be clear, your workaround is precisely what I used to do, but that is no
longer working after the GitLab upgrade. I can add myself as a reviewer,
but only to a group besides the default approvers list. Because Marge only
counts approvals from those who belong to the default approvers list, my
On January 21, 2020 11:25:28 AM EST, Carter Schonwald
wrote:
>theres a lot of spam repos on the gitlab :(
>
>11:07 AM
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/wandaibson/oberton-paris
>
>https://gitlab.haskell.org/explore/projects?utf8=%E2%9C%93&name=keto&sort=latest_activity_des
On January 21, 2020 11:25:28 AM EST, Carter Schonwald
wrote:
>theres a lot of spam repos on the gitlab :(
>
>11:07 AM
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/wandaibson/oberton-paris
>
>https://gitlab.haskell.org/explore/projects?utf8=%E2%9C%93&name=keto&sort=latest_activity_des
Hi everyone,
It appears that gitlab.haskell.org's GitLab services went down around
nine hours ago (around midnight EST). Surprisingly, the outage appears
to be entirely unrelated to yesterday's upgrade. Rather, the problem was
merely that the docker repository had grown to fill the e
uot;conversation" part of a Github PR, and I assume it will have similar
issues with Gitlab.
Norman
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
I've been assigned a few merge requests to review on gitlab. One I've
completed and approved. One I've completed and have decided that
somebody else needs to approve it; I'm not qualified. Two I've not
yet started.
Is there any way to tell gitlab, "I&#x
a few different problems with the GitLab server right now. I
> am gonna try to mitigate the issues, so the server might be unavailable for
> a few short periods.
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Bryan Richter via ghc-devs writes:
> I eventually resorted to a server reboot, which cleared up all the problems
> I was seeing. I think we're back in business.
>
The root partition was close to running out of disk space yesterday. The
problem appears to be that /nix is located on the small syste
Isn't it just "move /nix out of the way, bind mount a new one from a
larger drive, use rsync to move the data"?
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 9:25 AM Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> Bryan Richter via ghc-devs writes:
>
> > I eventually resorted to a server reboot, which cleared up all the problems
> > I was see
301 - 400 of 459 matches
Mail list logo
