Archives
Archives
| From: | "Manuel Rüger" <mrueg@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review | ||
| Date: | Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:50:51 | ||
| Message-Id: | 56366D04.3070906@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review by hasufell |
||
| 1 | On 01.11.2015 20:23, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 | > On 11/01/2015 06:44 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 3 | >> There's been a lot of discussion about relying on GitHub for pull |
| 4 | >> requests and code review and such, so I have set up a Phabricator |
| 5 | >> instance against gentoo.git to see how a free alternative might work. |
| 6 | >> |
| 7 | >> Here's a few examples of how things could work: |
| 8 | >> |
| 9 | >> General post-commit review: |
| 10 | >> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/rGENTOO27ba62d0c7fcabdc79ce82a064b43d67b3b11cca |
| 11 | >> |
| 12 | >> Tracking commits with issues that need attention: |
| 13 | >> http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/audit/query/open/ |
| 14 | >> |
| 15 | >> Pre-commit review: http://phabricator.astralcloak.net/D1 |
| 16 | >> |
| 17 | >> Phabricator also has all sorts of fancy (optional) features that could |
| 18 | >> be useful for collaborative development (see http://phabricator.org/ for |
| 19 | >> more info). |
| 20 | >> |
| 21 | >> What do you think? |
| 22 | >> |
| 23 | >> |
| 24 | > |
| 25 | > phabricator is horrible. I'll definitely use it less (if at all) than |
| 26 | > bugzilla. |
| 27 | > |
| 28 | |
| 29 | On 10.10.2015 16:15, Julian Ospald wrote: |
| 30 | > That's a great start for us, having developers announce publicly that |
| 31 | > they will ignore our project or require us to create bugs for every |
| 32 | > missing "|| die" in an ebuild. |
| 33 | |
| 34 | *chuckles* |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-hosted code review | hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |