Tipping the apple cart?

[Ben Cooksley]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:09 PM Kai Uwe Broulik <kde at privat.broulik.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > What are you missing?
>
> The description of the change (Review Board had that, Phabricator
> doesn't, so I got used to it, I guess...), the context of the comment
> (i.e. the code snippet a comment was added to), so I don't need to open
> GitLab to figure out what's going on.
>
> On Phabricator you get:
>
> Subject: D12345: Do something amazing
> "Foo added inline comments
> INLINE COMMENTS
>
> somefile.cpp:123 [View Inline]
> - void foo();
> + void bar();
>
> "Do you think this change is neccessary?"
>
> REPOSITORY
> Foo Repo
>
> To: Addressees"
>
> Whereas with GitLab all you get is:
>
> Subject: foo-repo | Do something amazing (!12345)
> "Project:Branches: someperson/foo-repo:featurebranch -> kde/foo-repo:master
>
> "Do you think this change is neccessary?"
>
> [View it on Gitlab]"

So what you're saying here is, you'd like it to include the lines of
code in question to provide context to the comment?

>
>  > Most of the "modern" systems do this
>
> Doesn't mean it's better. When I review code I start reading it top to
> bottom, commenting on every detail that I find fishy, convoluted, or
> broken. Sometimes after having added a comment I find an explanation
> further down, or I realize I have misread something or I just want to
> rephrase a comment to be somewhat nicer, or I don't want to be overly
> pedantic and remove a comment again, etc.
>
>  > against the fact that people made comments on phabricator and then
> never submitted them because you had to scroll to the bottom and press
> the "send" button.
>
> Ideally, you'd be able to just "Add" with a banner saying you have "n
> pending comments" or "Add and submit" for a one shot immediate comment.

It sounds like you are after Merge Request Reviews
(see https://about.gitlab.com/2018/10/22/gitlab-11-4-released/#merge-request-reviews)

This is an Enterprise Edition feature of Gitlab and therefore not
available on invent.kde.org, because per Community guidelines use of
non-free software is not permitted.

While we can potentially ask them whether they'd be willing to move
that to Community Edition, we would have to put together a user story
and some other bits and pieces around why it's highly impactful on our
workflow (including examples).

>
> Cheers
> Kai Uwe

Regards,
Ben