Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Support ActivityPub for merge requests

gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#11

Post by lolinder »

mplanchard wrote: post #3

Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge ( https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 , issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were j…

Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer.

[0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#12

Post by metaphor »

lolinder wrote: post #11
mplanchard wrote: post #3

Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge ( https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 , issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were j…

Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request

> Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0].

I must be missing something...how is what you linked to relevant to the feature(s) that the parent is alluding to again? Surely you're not referring to Gitea WIP marking, which sounds functionally equivalent to GitLab Draft marking[1].

[1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/draft...

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#13

Post by tmpX7dMeXU »

mplanchard wrote: post #3

Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge ( https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 , issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were j…

Yeah. This just feels like a faddish attempt to appeal to the sort of ‘open data’ fetishism that you’d expect to see in gitlab’s user base.

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#14

Post by anamexis »

lolinder wrote: post #11
mplanchard wrote: post #3

Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge ( https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 , issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were j…

Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request

Are enterprise purchasers asking for ActivityPub integrations?

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#15

Post by [deleted] »

metaphor wrote: post #12
lolinder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request

> Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I must be missing something...how is what you linked to relevant to the feature(s) that the parent is alluding to again? Surely you're not referring to Gitea WIP marking, which sounds functionally equivalent to GitLab Draft marking[1]. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/draft...

[deleted]

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#16

Post by lolinder »

metaphor wrote: post #12
lolinder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I've given up on GitLab ever implementing features that are directed at regular developers any more—they've pivoted to focusing exclusively on the enterprise purchaser rather than the day-to-day engineer. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/next/usage/pull-request

> Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I must be missing something...how is what you linked to relevant to the feature(s) that the parent is alluding to again? Surely you're not referring to Gitea WIP marking, which sounds functionally equivalent to GitLab Draft marking[1]. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/draft...

> If the maintainers request changes, you'll need to make those changes in your branch and push the changes to your forked repository. The PR will be updated automatically with the new changes.

Look at this PR for several examples of "requested changes":

https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/764

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#17

Post by [deleted] »

mplanchard wrote: post #3

Fun, but as a GitLab user I’d much rather they address missing features of their core competency (code review), like the inability to “request changes” or otherwise block a merge ( https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/761 , issue open 6 years), or adding the ability to both squash and merge AND use the merge train I know companies are big organizations that can do more than one thing at a time, but we were j…

[deleted]

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#19

Post by sshine »

lolinder wrote: post #8

From the comments, Forgejo is also already working on implementing ForgeFed, an ActivityPub extension specifically designed for software forges [0]. Judging from the issue, it looks like they're well on their way [1]. I dislike even federated social media, but this is a use for federation I approve of wholeheartedly. The friction of having to create accounts on X forges (where X is the number of projects that self-ho…

ForgeFed is the noblest attempt to decentralise git after GitHub made it popular.

It is potentially more DDoS resistant and secure, since your git web front-end (e.g. Forgejo) only needs to record ping-like messages, and you can react to them in your time, separate from public interfaces.

Re: Support ActivityPub for merge requests

#20

Post by metaphor »

lolinder wrote: post #16
metaphor wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gitea and Forgejo have this functionality [0]. I must be missing something...how is what you linked to relevant to the feature(s) that the parent is alluding to again? Surely you're not referring to Gitea WIP marking, which sounds functionally equivalent to GitLab Draft marking[1]. [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/draft...

> If the maintainers request changes, you'll need to make those changes in your branch and push the changes to your forked repository. The PR will be updated automatically with the new changes. Look at this PR for several examples of "requested changes": https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/764

Thanks for clarifying. That just looks like the functional equivalent of setting GitLab unresolved MR threads as blocking[1] though.

[1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/index...

Post reply on HN