Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Phabricator was open source?
Same with gitlab? (They're self hosting an instance)
there are some features in pro version, but yeah its mostly open source
Moving to GitLab
11–20 of 61 posts
Re: Moving to GitLab
#12Note: this is about moving from Phabricator to GitLab, not GitHub to GitLab. GHC Discussion from November about moving to GitLab/moving away from Phabricator: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-November/01...
Does anyone know what did not work out with phabricator?
Ben Gamari's October 30 email (https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-October/016...) to the ghc-devs list proposed considering alternatives to Phabricator and outlines reasons that Phab wasn't working.
A summary of the problems outlined in the email:
* Lack of options for support from Phacility
* Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development resources to paid features
* Issues with Harbormaster (Phabricator's half-baked CI system)
* Developer's prefer using regular Git to Phabricator's nonstandard workflow, which requires installation of the Arcanist command-line tool (written in PHP to manage patches.
Re: Moving to GitLab
#13Was a move to Gerrit or the email patch workflow ever discussed?
Re: Moving to GitLab
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone know what did not work out with phabricator?
Ben Gamari's October 30 email ( https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-October/016... ) to the ghc-devs list proposed considering alternatives to Phabricator and outlines reasons that Phab wasn't working. A summary of the problems outlined in the email: * Lack of options for support from Phacility * Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development…
> Phabricator's nonstandard workflow, which requires installation of the Arcanist command-line tool
I was just going to eval Phab for my team, your comment identified a deal breaker for us and you've saved me more than a few wasted hours. Thank you
Re: Moving to GitLab
#15A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage on their own server (or even worse others servers in a chain)?
So why the hell instead of moving from a company to another ANY FOSS dev do not came back to classic ML (mirrored offline in personal maildir) and use hosting, multiple if possible, only as a mean to offer a shared repo? Why not even serve the project via the repo itself like fossil?
There is a world outside the web, on our desktops.
Just as a suggestion: try to disconnect your desktop and look what you can or can't do. If you feel "empty" you are in danger.
Re: Moving to GitLab
#16A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage on their own server (or even worse others servers in a chain)? So why the hell instead of moving from a company to another ANY FOSS dev do not came back to classic ML (mirrored offline in personal maildir) and use hosting, multiple if possible, only as a mean…
The reason people put their code online is because it is a convenient way to host it, and often platforms like these have some ancillary tools that make the code easy to work with.
Re: Moving to GitLab
#17A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage on their own server (or even worse others servers in a chain)? So why the hell instead of moving from a company to another ANY FOSS dev do not came back to classic ML (mirrored offline in personal maildir) and use hosting, multiple if possible, only as a mean…
Gitlab also runs locally.
Re: Moving to GitLab
#18A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage on their own server (or even worse others servers in a chain)? So why the hell instead of moving from a company to another ANY FOSS dev do not came back to classic ML (mirrored offline in personal maildir) and use hosting, multiple if possible, only as a mean…
The reason people put their code online is because it is a convenient way to host it, and often platforms like these have some ancillary tools that make the code easy to work with.
Yep for simply putting it on-line, but using platform features like GitHub pull-request, wikis, pages etc means voluntary tie to a platform.
If I only use Git{Hub,Lab}, Phabricator, ... as a repo host no problem, I can change as I want.
Re: Moving to GitLab
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ben Gamari's October 30 email ( https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-October/016... ) to the ghc-devs list proposed considering alternatives to Phabricator and outlines reasons that Phab wasn't working. A summary of the problems outlined in the email: * Lack of options for support from Phacility * Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development…
> Phabricator's nonstandard workflow, which requires installation of the Arcanist command-line tool I was just going to eval Phab for my team, your comment identified a deal breaker for us and you've saved me more than a few wasted hours. Thank you
I am actually a big fan of Arcanist. It rather simplifies the Git workflow management. You simply develop new code in a separate branch from master, and use `arc diff` from said branch to start a Pull Request (called a "diff" in the Arc world). No need to use `git push` and manage upstream branches, simply rely on the diff abstraction. It has many great features including `arc diff --preview` which gives you a link to a preview of your PR so you can see what it looks like in the browser (much better than `git diff`).
Of course, there is a bit of a learning curve and most engineers already know the standard git workflow. That is a disadvantage of course, but only in the short term. If it's a short project, then I would recommend against it. However, if you're in it for the long run, arc is great.
I feel like the other points (CI, lack of support, etc.) much better show the weak points of Phabricator versus GitHub or GitLab.
Re: Moving to GitLab
#20TLDR; Why GitLab instead of GitHub? From their discussion group thread:
- Good multi-platform hosted CI or at least workable integration with other (existing) CI solutions
- Hosted review tool that we don't have to maintain ourselves (though a little bit less good than Phabricator, allegedly)
- familiar GitHub-like workflow with no requirement to install extra software locally
- Reuse of GitHub credentials
- Realistic path forward for migrating tickets from Trac
CI is becoming Achilles heels for GitHub. Personally I would probably also add lack of fine grained permissions for contributors, inflexible diff, very basic code review tool as well.