Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can't blame them, GitLab's CI integration is great. Take a look at it:

https://invent.kde.org/network/kaidan/-/pipelines/25364

I've tried to find same in the Blender's phabricator and it doesn't look that they have CI support at all.






Yep. Phabricator kiiiinda has CI through Harbormaster, but it's not well documented and only sorta kinda works, and if I remember right, requires running arcanist commands locally. It's way far behind what other platforms are doing.

Ah, it reminds me of another issue - AWS-type naming (harbormaster, maniphest, phriction, diffusion, differential) I simply can't what are those without clicking them.

The naming style wasn't great, but you get used to it, like anything else. The architecture itself was beautiful; rather than trying to build a single monolithic application, the developers built a federated suite of applications that all shared a common architecture. This made it possible for the developers to treat each Phabricator component as a separate project and also allowed Phabricator administrators to set up a la carte configurations according to the organization's specific needs.

Absolutely, diff (Differential) based patch review is a great workflow for adding changes

Harbormaster works fine, though it requires a million clicks to set up.

It can trigger automatically for new commits or new revisions.

Gitlab is much better at the CI part, though, but significantly worse for code review.


There are many high-quality CI platforms that integrate into Git that look great. It doesn't have to be built into a large monolithic platform like GitLab. I feel like this is a bad decision too. You'd think they'd at least move to Sourcehut.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: