> Phabricator works well with remote repos, and I don't think
> any strong advantage in using local Phab repos. On Pagure we will get
> more visibility for the projects, easy forking, etc. Also certain
> simple repos (like the one above) can be completely fine with Pagure
> issue tracker and thus don't need to be configured in Phab (the UI is
> more difficult there for filing new bugs). I'd go with Pagure, for
> all our projects.
In general I agree, I'd be happy for us to move pretty much everything
into pagure. The only potential issues I see are:
1) What about issue tracking for the projects where we currently use
Phab? For e.g., if we want to keep tracking issues/tasks in Phab
exclusively, can we disable Pagure issue tracking (and make sure people
can easily find their way to Phab issue tracking from Pagure?)
You can disable issues in project settings. I don't think you can add a note to
redirect people elsewhere, we can post a RFE or we can simply make that information
visible in project README (which is shown by default).
The question whether we want to actually disable issues for certain projects or have
several places to file them (pagure and phab) is a different matter. I guess we'll
decide that on case-by-case basis.
2) Similarly for pull requests - do we want to have parallel workflows,
accepting both Pagure pull requests and Phab diffs? Or if we don't, can
we disable Pagure PRs while providing sufficient breadcrumbs to get
people into the Phab workflow?
Yes, PRs can be disabled in settings as well. Again, I think this might be different for
each of our projects and we'll probably decide individually.