4 ms·
Thanks for the feedback, we really appreciate it! The quick reply to your comments is: we're working on almost all of it. > - GitLab is really hard to look at
by jobvandervoort 11y ago
Thanks for the feedback, we really appreciate it!
The quick reply to your comments is: we're working on almost all of it.
> - GitLab is really hard to look at. All of our devs are having trouble visually locating comments in diffs. We're always scrolling through the left-side menu looking for the issues tab. It's hard to visually differentiate between items like comments in merge requests. Our eyes just can't find and follow things. Even BitBucket looks better.
We're working hard on this and focus more and more of our development capacity to this.
> - GitLab-CI has poor documentation on runners, and a rather buggy test runner registration process that doesn't provide any debugging output and produces false positives quite often.
There are a lot of improvements coming in this field. Especially the integration and setup of runners is going to be easier. We're hoping to make this a zero-step setup thing.
Same with documentation. Our new GitLab CI maintainer Kamil has been spending a lot of time on writing documentation.
> - GitLab-CI has no unconditional cleanup directive, like CircleCI does... but if you're re-using a test runner instead of tearing down the server each time, unconditional cleanup is the one thing you need. And no, the Docker executor doesn't solve this because we don't want to test our Docker containers inside Docker.
This is interesting, I'm passing it onto Kamil.
> - CI is based on commit IDs. You can't run particular CI events on merge requests. For example, this means no way to run integration tests on merge requests.
This is be interesting to look at. I'm not sure whether we have something like this in the planning, but I'm taking note.
> - Typography could be improved. When you're looking at the issues page all day, this is quite noticeable.
We're worried about adding page load by including typefaces. We might change our minds on this. What OS are you using?
Would Roboto work, for instance?
> - Slack integration is not great; it dumps links to "GitLab Enterprise Edition" instead of useful commit/changeset stuff like GitHub does.
We welcome contributions to improve it. This is not a focus at the moment, but considering the popularity of Slack, we can definitely have a look at this.
- skyraider 11y agoSuper.. good to hear! Ideally the community can get a little more involved in design/UX too. I'm not sure if GitLab plans to set the tone there first - perhaps that's also on the roadmap. > Would Roboto work, for instance? Maybe the typeface isn't so much the issue as the layout? On the issue view, comments and descriptions have different positioning and styling. Also, important information lives above the issue title, which is unexpected. Being unable to trigger CI builds based on merge requests (which can dispatch a build for a commit ID, but you've probably already pushed that commit) is probably the most problematic for us at the moment. Maybe it would be cool if GitLab came up with some basic design principles/goals and accepted contributions toward that end. I know we'd be interested in contributions here and there to improve workflow/UX.
- fraserharris 11y agotypefaces are cached by the browser. Done properly, you should see zero impact on page load past the first load.
- techpeace 11y ago+1 Also worth checking out: https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/font-events.html https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/font-events.html
- paulojreis 11y ago> We're working hard on this and focus more and more of our development capacity to this. No, no, no. :) It's not a development thing, it's a design thing. The good part is that your users are well-defined - developers; you could do a great job there, but don't allocate your developers to it. Hire or contract someone experienced in UX. P.S. With a good UX work, you might end up not only bettering GitLab's layout but also discovering new, differentiating and truly useful (user-wise) features.