[GHC DevOps Group] The future of Phabricator

[Ben Gamari]

Andres Löh <andres at well-typed.com> writes:

> Hi.
>
>> 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).

Cheers,

- ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20181030/df4c2660/attachment.sig>