Gitlab workflow

Ben Gamari ben at
Sun Jul 7 17:05:19 UTC 2019

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs at> writes:

> |  You believe the one which marge posts telling you that the patch is
> |  merged, the commit it links to is on master so you can clearly see the
> |  patch has been committed.
> OK.  The earlier one, also from Marge, not the Discussion stream but rather in the panel at the top, says
>     Closed by Marge Bot 8 hours ago
>     The changes were not merged into master
> So that is an outright lie?   Yes it is closed, but contrary to the statement it _has_ been merged.
> It's unfortunate that this misleading display is right at top, in the summary material, while the truth (that it has been merged) is buried in the Discussion stream.  
> Alas.  But thank you for clarifying.
> Is this something we can raise with the Gitlab folk?  It seems so egregiously wrong.
Indeed this is a bit of a limitation of GitLab and is a result of the
fact that our Marge fork uses a somewhat hacky workflow for its merges
to work around other GitLab bugs. 

There is indeed GitLab issue [1] requesting the ability to manually mark
merge requests as merged, but it seems unlikely that this will happen in
the near future.

Thankfully, our days of using Marge are numbered. GitLab 12.0, which
shipped two weeks ago, introduced Merge Train support. I haven't yet
upgraded our installation but will try to do so this week.

There are a few annoying limitations of merge train support surrounding
forks, but I believe we can work around these for the time being.


- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list