Gitlab experiment status

[Zebediah Figura]

On 5/24/22 04:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The Gitlab experiment seems to be going well. For the last release, more
> than half the patches were submitted as Gitlab merge requests, so that
> seems to be working well for us.
> 
> There are still improvements we can make, and of course many more
> Gitlab features that we could start using, but before investing more
> effort we need to decide whether we want to use it going forward.
> 
> So now that you have had a chance to try it, what do you people think?
> Should we adopt Gitlab as our development platform?
> 

I don't think Gitlab is acceptable as a review platform as long as it 
doesn't have real support for threading (that is, nesting comments more 
than one level deep). That's not a failure of the mailing list bridge so 
much as it is a failure of the platform.

The requirement to sign off on a whole pull request (rather than 
individual patches) is unfortunate, but I can understand finding that a 
worthwhile sacrifice to make.

The inability to add comments to a patch which will not be committed is 
also unfortunate. Perhaps we can come up with a new convention for 
those, and automatically strip those out? Those who have experience with 
pull requests—do any other projects have a way of dealing with this?

Creating new pull requests is less convenient than it could be, although 
I can probably live with that.

Most of the benefits to Gitlab are applicable to new users and to the 
project maintainer, so there's not much on the "pro" side for me. One 
potential benefit I have noted is that it does seem potentially helpful 
to have a list of pull requests assigned to me, in case any of the 
relevant emails get lost. No other benefits have appeared to me at the 
moment, though.

Overall the benefits to gitlab don't seem to outweigh the drawbacks, at 
least not in its current state.