Sysadmin report on the modernization of our infrastructure
bcooksley at kde.org
Sun Jan 25 10:51:50 GMT 2015
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Matthew Dawson <matthew at mjdsystems.ca> wrote:
> On January 21, 2015 05:12:07 PM Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> As promised in the earlier thread, i'd like to present the sysadmin
>> report on the state of the infrastructure surrounding our code.
>> It contains a detailed summary of what is broken with our existing
>> systems, why change is necessary and an evaluation of the options we
>> considered. We have also made a proposal based on our evaluations and
>> the wishlist of functionality drawn up the community.
> Thanks for putting this report together! I think the outline of the current
> issues and the listed requirements are very useful, and as outlined
> Phabricator does seem like a good contender.
Not a problem.
> I do have one important question regarding its review system, how does it
> handle a series of commits? For more complicated changes, there may be
> several commits to get from point A to B that I'd like to get reviewed.
> ReviewBoard doesn't currently handles this, and instead squashes them all into
> one patch (see for instance: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/117010/ , which
> was originally made up of 5 different commits). One of the plus points of
> Gerrit for me was that it would have shown each of these commits separately
> (though having each become a change isn't ideal to me). How would Phabricator
> handle a set of commits like this?
The actual diff itself is shown as a single merged entity ala Reviewboard.
However the chain of commits used to generate the change (assuming you
use Arcanist to submit it) is shown in the user interface, complete
with SHA's and commit messages.
More information about the kde-core-devel