[GHC DevOps Group] The future of Phabricator
ben at well-typed.com
Tue Oct 30 13:51:22 UTC 2018
Andres Löh <andres at well-typed.com> writes:
>> Unfortunately, if I am not mistaken, GitLab also has a big problem. It requires the use of GitLab CI — i.e., we cannot use CircleCI and Appveyor with it. (At least, that is my current understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.)
> Just a clarification on this issue.
> I might be wrong, but my understanding is that:
> - Gitlab offers its own Gitlab CI, but it doesn't force you to use it,
> and doesn't prevent you from using other CI solutions.
> - Web-based CI solutions have to specifically support Gitlab for you to
> be able to use them with Gitlab.
> - To my knowledge, Appveyor supports Gitlab, but Circle and Travis
> currently do not. I know that there are issues open for these systems
> to support Gitlab, but I have no idea whether this is likely to happen
> anytime soon. For example, for Circle, the discussion seems to be
> here: https://circleci.com/ideas/?idea=CCI-I-248
That is entirely correct; however, we have already invested the effort
to build a bridge between Phabricator and CircleCI (only to have
deployment complicated by an apparent Phabricator bug).
The implementation of this didn't take particularly long and I expect
migrating this work to GitLab would be if anything easier (since GitLab
has a more-standard REST interface than Phabricator's Conduit).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ghc-devs