On January 21, 2015 05:12:07 PM Ben Cooksley wrote: > Hi all, > > As promised in the earlier thread, i'd like to present the sysadmin > report on the state of the infrastructure surrounding our code. > > It contains a detailed summary of what is broken with our existing > systems, why change is necessary and an evaluation of the options we > considered. We have also made a proposal based on our evaluations and > the wishlist of functionality drawn up the community.
Thanks for putting this report together! I think the outline of the current issues and the listed requirements are very useful, and as outlined Phabricator does seem like a good contender. I do have one important question regarding its review system, how does it handle a series of commits? For more complicated changes, there may be several commits to get from point A to B that I'd like to get reviewed. ReviewBoard doesn't currently handles this, and instead squashes them all into one patch (see for instance: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/117010/ , which was originally made up of 5 different commits). One of the plus points of Gerrit for me was that it would have shown each of these commits separately (though having each become a change isn't ideal to me). How would Phabricator handle a set of commits like this? -- Matthew
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
