> it's unusable for large changes and large files. On large changes it sometimes won't even show all the changes.
Improving the performance and scalability of merge requests is the priority for the Source Code team right now, and we are starting with progressively loading the diffs over coming releases. See https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/1816. Currently we load them in a single request which is a serious bottleneck.
In parallel we are exploring a range of UX changes to streamline and improve the code review experience. If you have any specific ideas please let us know, or create an issue!
amasad, I enjoyed the perspective of your article. I agree an engineer with many years of experience is going to have different expectations to someone who is entering the profession today. I think it's similar to my perspective on the iPad – I find it interesting but limited because my experience and mental model of computing is very different to someone who is growing up with an iPad in hand.
I work on the Web IDE at GitLab (among other things) which we built after we noticed that there were a few situations in our day to day work on GitLab where we didn't need a full local development environment, like updating documentation or addressing simple review comments. It doesn't replace a local IDE from me yet, but it is helpful and we hope we can make it more useful in more situations where local IDEs have shortcomings. I think the effort and maintenance of a local development environment is also a cost that is frequently overlooked – reinstalling dependencies is a headache that disappears in an automated ephemeral environment like repl.it or where we're heading at GitLab.
But that seems like it's just an iteration on the status quo rather than leap frogging to a post-IDE world. I think the idea of online interactive development can go so much further. Maybe we can integrate interactive editors/terminals/previews with our planning and code review tools so that experimentation and exploration are easier and happen in line in the discussions we have planning the next feature to build. I put a few dot points down on this line of thinking last week https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/533 but I'd be interested to hear some of your more concrete ideas of what a post-IDE world might look like.
> But that seems like it's just an iteration on the status quo rather than leap frogging to a post-IDE world.
I think the fact that you'd have a globally accessible, pay-as-you-go, zero-setup, multiplayer programming tools is surely a different beast from the IDE. However, it does go further than this and most of the innovation to this end aren't coming from us but from our users and how they (an)use the system. I can try to predict what the post-IDE world looks like, but it's better to discover it.
Thanks for the feedback. I’m a Product Manager for Create (Git, merge requests etc) at GitLab. Why do you think the repository part of the project isn’t clear enough? What would make GitLab’s repo capabilities less diluted for you? I want to make sure using Git with GitLab is great.
Thanks for taking the time to share your feedback. I'm the Product Manager responsible for merge requests. Approvals are such an important part of merge requests, and we are working to make them better.
Thanks for the disapprove merge request idea. We're considering this idea in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/761 where further feedback would be much appreciated, or on any other issue.
I'd point out that if you look at issue 5439 the team itself was originally unaware of the high number of edge case states of the merge request and closed the issue prematurely. Having many code paths is a code smell so I'd suggest simplifying your UX and edge cases here.
Since you own the merge request flow, I would suggest looking at the page and all it's edge cases and seeing where you can simplify for the user. There is a dizzying large amount of info and CTAs presented to the user; it's pure information overload. Don't just measure yourself by how many features you ship but rather on how you communicate those features to your users. Simplicity is a powerful feature in itself.
Looking forward to batch comments.
The disapprove merge request is a feature available in Phabricator and other competitors so I would look to see how they've implemented it.
James (Product Manager at GitLab) here. I've just picked up merge requests and have seen lots of feedback across multiple issues related to navigating between diffs/files when reviewing a merge request, and I want to make it better too.
There have been a few different solutions proposed including adding a file tree to the merge request interface, so you can quickly see a full list of the files and how they relate to each other. There is a design discovery issue for adding a file tree to the merge request interface https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/49189 scheduled for the next release to work out the UX in more detail.
Would a file tree make reviewing a merge request easier for you? Thanks for the feedback, and would love to hear more here, or on the issue.
Normally new duplicate issues are consolidated into the oldest issue, but since both issues had been open a while ago I kept the issue that had the most participants and discussion open.
Improving the performance and scalability of merge requests is the priority for the Source Code team right now, and we are starting with progressively loading the diffs over coming releases. See https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/1816. Currently we load them in a single request which is a serious bottleneck.
In parallel we are exploring a range of UX changes to streamline and improve the code review experience. If you have any specific ideas please let us know, or create an issue!
> Also, merge trains for FF-only repos, please!
Absolutely! We are iterating towards this https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/58226!