From: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bluestop.org>
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: "Brian J. Johnson" <brian.johnson@hpe.com>,
"edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>,
"Jeremiah Cox" <jerecox@microsoft.com>,
stephano <stephano.cetola@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: my Phabricator findings [was: Research Request]
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:11:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <etPan.5c0a72e1.327b23c6.56ce@bluestop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a3bc783a-3c2b-40ea-806c-27fe85876138@redhat.com>
On December 7, 2018 at 5:00:55 AM, Laszlo Ersek (lersek@redhat.com(mailto:lersek@redhat.com)) wrote:
> To be honest, I'm stumped how Mozilla could adopt (according to the
> article linked at the top) "Phabricator as the primary code review
> system for Firefox".
They previously used Review Board (https://www.reviewboard.org/), which similarly uses a tool ‘rbt’ (RB Tools) to post/manage reviews, so it seems their processes are set up to work in such a way.
I can understand that our workflow is different and not a good fit for the model Phabricator uses.
Rebecca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-07 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-14 18:34 [edk2-announce] Research Request stephano
2018-11-20 23:47 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-11-21 0:58 ` stephano
2018-11-26 21:43 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-11-26 22:27 ` stephano
2018-11-27 9:33 ` Knop, Ryszard
2018-11-27 21:16 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-11-27 22:23 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-11-28 18:19 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-11-28 19:21 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-11-27 12:53 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-11-27 21:55 ` Brian J. Johnson
2018-11-28 11:07 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-11-28 18:31 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-11-28 22:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-11-29 1:07 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-11-29 9:48 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-11-29 21:20 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-12-03 9:29 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-03 21:39 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-12-04 18:00 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-05 12:55 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-05 17:26 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-12-06 14:05 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-06 14:07 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-06 14:13 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-06 15:25 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-12-07 6:10 ` Rebecca Cran
2018-12-07 12:00 ` my Phabricator findings [was: Research Request] Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-07 13:11 ` Rebecca Cran [this message]
2018-12-05 17:31 ` [edk2-announce] Research Request Rebecca Cran
2018-12-06 13:51 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-03 17:22 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-12-04 18:26 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-05 19:09 ` Jeremiah Cox
2018-12-06 13:33 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-11-28 5:54 ` Desimone, Nathaniel L
2018-11-28 6:22 ` Stephano Cetola
2018-12-04 18:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2018-12-05 16:03 ` stephano
2018-12-12 13:20 ` GitLab results from my POV [was: Research Request] Laszlo Ersek
2018-12-20 17:46 ` Rebecca Cran
2019-01-10 20:17 ` about 'sr.ht' " Laszlo Ersek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=etPan.5c0a72e1.327b23c6.56ce@bluestop.org \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox