[Mesa-dev] Gitlab migration

[Rob Clark]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 2018 21:03:39 Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2018 23:43:33 Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I'm going to attempt to interleave a bunch of replies here.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 May 2018 at 20:34, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>>>>> > The freedesktop.org admins are trying to move as many projects and
>>>>> > services
>>>>> > as possible over to gitlab and somehow I got hoodwinked into
>>>>> > spear-heading
>>>>> > it for mesa.  There are a number of reasons for this change.  Some of
>>>>> > those
>>>>> > reasons have to do with the maintenance cost of our sprawling and
>>>>> > aging
>>>>> > infrastructure.  Some of those reasons provide significant benefit to
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > project being migrated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for starting the discussion! I appreciate the help.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, we _are_ migrating the hosting for all projects, as in,
>>>>> the remote you push to will change. We've slowly staged this with a
>>>>> few projects of various shapes and sizes, and are confident that it
>>>>> more than holds up to the load. This is something we can pull the
>>>>> trigger on roughly any time, and I'm happy to do it whenever. When
>>>>> that happens, trying to push to ssh://git.fd.o will give you an error
>>>>> message explaining how to update your SSH keys, how to change your
>>>>> remotes, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> cgit and anongit will not be orphaned: they remain as push mirrors so
>>>>> are updated simultaneously with GItLab pushes, as will the GitHub
>>>>> mirrors. Realistically, we can't deprecate anongit for a (very) long
>>>>> time due to the millions of Yocto forks which have that URL embedded
>>>>> in their build recipes. Running cgit alongside that is fairly
>>>>> low-intervention. And hey, if we look at the logs in five years' time
>>>>> and see 90% of people still using cgit to browse and not GitLab,
>>>>> that's a pretty strong hint that we should put effort into keeping it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't know what people are talking about. A cgit commit log is a
>>>> tight table with 5 columns with information. I can't find anything like that
>>>> in GitLab. All I could find is this:
>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/jekstrand/mesa/commits/master
>>>>
>>>> The elements are too large and don't have much information. Why would
>>>> you have the author name on another line when you could add another column
>>>> instead? There is a lot of unused screen space. And why having avatars in
>>>> the commit log. It's not Facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Then there is the project Overview page. It mostly just shows files in
>>>> the top level directory. Compare it with cgit where the Overview page looks
>>>> like a, guess what, overview!
>>>
>>>
>>> GitLab's "branches" page is sort of the same thing but with GitLab's more
>>> chunky style.  They make the same choice as GitHub to have the homepage be
>>> there for browser and the project's readme.  (You have to name it README.md
>>> for that to work).  It makes sense on GitHub because that's all many
>>> projects have for a home page.  Given that most Mesa people who go to the
>>> web view are doing so to find a particular branch and read the commit log,
>>> it may not be the optimal choice.
>>
>>
>> I think the more fitting word is chubby. Good for mobile and touch
>> screens. Not so good for mouse-navigated high-resolution screens (typical
>> office setup).
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> OK, that was harsh, but there is a lot of truth to it. I guess GitLab is
>>>> great for admins and I get that. Speaking of the web UI, at least the
>>>> read-only view is impressively unimpressive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps part of the reason why I like the GitLab UI so much is because
>>> I'm a crazy person who regularly uses it from my phone.  When you open the
>>> two on a mobile device, the difference in usability is night and day.  I
>>> also spend a lot of time in the file viewer and really like syntax
>>> highlighting.
>>
>>
>> The syntax highlighting looks good.
>>
>> I wonder if we can do patch reviewing via gitlab and also rebasing+pushing
>> via gitlab (no merges), sort of what Gerrit can do.
>
>
> We can disallow actual merges and only allow fast-forward merges.  I'm not
> sure if our version will do the rebase for you or if you have to do it
> yourself and force-push the branch prior to merging.  In any case, we can
> get the merge request workflow without ending up with merges in the history.
>
> Given the number of people who have said they still like the mailing list,
> that's probably a discussion for another email thread.
>

It would be kinda clever if gitlab could automagically send patches to
list when you open a PR.. even more clever if it could link replies to
those patches on list back to the PR, although maybe that would be
harder to implement.. that would seem like having our cake and eating
it too ;-)

BR,
-R