Archives
Archives
| From: | hasufell <hasufell@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review | ||
| Date: | Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:23:39 | ||
| Message-Id: | 563666AA.9090100@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review by Michael Palimaka |
||
| 1 | On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 | > There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull |
| 3 | > requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator |
| 4 | > instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work. |
| 5 | > |
| 6 | > Here's a few examples of how things could work: |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | > General post-commit review: |
| 9 | > http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca |
| 10 | > |
| 11 | > Tracking commits with issues that need attention: |
| 12 | > http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/ |
| 13 | > |
| 14 | > Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1 |
| 15 | > |
| 16 | > Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could |
| 17 | > be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for |
| 18 | > more info). |
| 19 | > |
| 20 | > What do you think? |
| 21 | > |
| 22 | > |
| 23 | |
| 24 | phabricator is horrible. I'll definitely use it less (if at all) than |
| 25 | bugzilla. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review | "Manuel Rüger" <mrueg@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review | William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> |
| [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-hosted code review | Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> |