Hi, On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 15:44, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Just a couple of concerns from drm/i915 perspective for starters: > > > > - Patchwork integration. I think we'll want to keep patchwork for at > > least intel-gfx etc. for the time being. IIUC the one thing we need is > > some server side hook to update patchwork on git push. > > > > - Sticking to fdo bugzilla and disabling gitlab issues for at least > > drm-intel for the time being. Doing that migration in the same go is a > > bit much I think. Reassignment across bugzilla and gitlab will be an > > issue. > > Good points, forgot about both. Patchwork reading the mailing list > should keep working as-is, but the update hook needs looking into. All the hooks are retained. gitlab.fd.o pushes to git.fd.o, and git.fd.o still executes all the old hooks. This includes Patchwork, readthedocs, AppVeyor, and whatever else. > For merge requests I think best approach is to enable them very > selectively at first for testing out, and then making a per-subproject > decision whether they make sense. E.g. I think for maintainer-tools > integrating make check and the doc building into gitlab CI would be > sweet, and worth looking into gitlab merge requests just to automate > that. Again best left out of scope for the initial migration. You don't need MRs to do that. You can build a .gitlab-ci.yml file which will run make check or build the docs or whatever, and have that run on pushes. Anyone can then fork the repo, push their changes to that fork, and see the CI results from there. It's like Travis: the CI configuration is a (mutable) part of the codebase, not a separate 'thing' hanging off a specific repo. So if you write the CI pipeline first, you can have people running CI on push completely independently of switching the workflow to use MRs. Cheers, Daniel
