reviewing on GitLab

[Richard Eisenberg]

Thanks, Ben, for this summary. I am happy to wait for a resolution -- as long as there is some hope that waiting will not be in vain. This email indeed gives me this hope.

And, for the record, I agree that the merge-train support should be significantly higher priority. The whole merge scenario has caused much more trouble than a poor UI for reviewing.

Thanks!
Richard

> On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:28 PM, Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com> wrote:
> 
> Simon and I had a discussion with James Ramsey, a project manager with
> GitLab, around Simon's document a few months ago. They identified their
> first priority as work on merge queue infrastructure (another request of
> ours, although it's not on Simon's list); this work is tracked as
> gitlab-ee#9186 and a version of it will be shipped in GitLab 12.0, next
> month's release.
> 
> James made it clear that another of his priorities for this year was to
> look at the current discussion interface and try to mitigate the sorts
> of problems that we are encountering. Simon proposed that the situation
> could be improved by presenting comments chronologically. James found
> this to be an interesting suggestion and said he would add it to his
> bucket of ideas.
> 
> With respect to timing: There were understandably no concrete timelines
> given. James said that work on the discussion model would likely only
> happen in the second half of the year (which we are now just entering).
> Since then work on the merge train infrastructure has progressed a bit
> more slower than expected, so I suspect things may happen a bit later
> than expected. Moreover, neither gitlab-org&855 nor gitlab-ce#56481 have
> milestones yet so I expect the timescale is at least on the order of
> several months, unfortunately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20190607/f075c681/attachment.html>