An error occurred fetching the project authors.
  1. 02 Oct, 2014 1 commit
  2. 22 Sep, 2014 1 commit
  3. 25 Aug, 2014 1 commit
  4. 29 Jul, 2014 1 commit
  5. 25 Jul, 2014 1 commit
  6. 26 Jun, 2014 1 commit
  7. 23 May, 2014 1 commit
  8. 09 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  9. 25 Mar, 2014 1 commit
  10. 28 Feb, 2014 1 commit
  11. 17 Dec, 2013 1 commit
  12. 13 Dec, 2013 1 commit
  13. 02 Oct, 2013 1 commit
    • Drew Blessing's avatar
      Issue-4769 - Unable to update case of label · 45de7d26
      Drew Blessing authored
      Labels are saved in the database with the case they were originally created with.
      Before this change if a user created a label with the same text but different case
      the label would use the original case and no new label would be created in the
      database. With this change, labels are now case-sensitive.
      
      Steps to test:
      
      1. Before this change, create a new issue with a new label "FIxMe"
      2. Edit the issue and change the label to "FixMe"
      3. Note that the label reverted to "FIxMe"
      4. Apply this change
      5. Edit the issue again and change the label to "FixMe"
      Note that the new case was preserved. If you also look in the database in the "tags" table you will see that both labels are present - "FIxMe" and "FixMe".
      45de7d26
  14. 09 Sep, 2013 1 commit
  15. 25 Aug, 2013 1 commit
    • ash wilson's avatar
      Link issues from comments and automatically close them · c8a115c0
      ash wilson authored
      Any mention of Issues, MergeRequests, or Commits via GitLab-flavored markdown
      references in descriptions, titles, or attached Notes creates a back-reference
      Note that links to the original referencer. Furthermore, pushing commits with
      commit messages that match a (configurable) regexp to a project's default
      branch will close any issues mentioned by GFM in the matched closing phrase.
      If accepting a merge request would close any Issues in this way, a banner is
      appended to the merge request's main panel to indicate this.
      c8a115c0
  16. 21 Aug, 2013 2 commits
  17. 10 Aug, 2013 1 commit
  18. 08 Aug, 2013 1 commit
  19. 18 Jul, 2013 1 commit
    • Izaak Alpert's avatar
      Merge Request on forked projects · 3d7194f0
      Izaak Alpert authored
      The good:
      
       - You can do a merge request for a forked commit and it will merge properly (i.e. it does work).
       - Push events take into account merge requests on forked projects
       - Tests around merge_actions now present, spinach, and other rspec tests
       - Satellites now clean themselves up rather then recreate
      
      The questionable:
      
       - Events only know about target projects
       - Project's merge requests only hold on to MR's where they are the target
       - All operations performed in the satellite
      
      The bad:
      
        -  Duplication between project's repositories and satellites (e.g. commits_between)
      
      (for reference: http://feedback.gitlab.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/3456722-merge-requests-between-projects-repos)
      
      Fixes:
      
      Make test repos/satellites only create when needed
      -Spinach/Rspec now only initialize test directory, and setup stubs (things that are relatively cheap)
      -project_with_code, source_project_with_code, and target_project_with_code now create/destroy their repos individually
      -fixed remote removal
      -How to merge renders properly
      -Update emails to show project/branches
      -Edit MR doesn't set target branch
      -Fix some failures on editing/creating merge requests, added a test
      -Added back a test around merge request observer
      -Clean up project_transfer_spec, Remove duplicate enable/disable observers
      -Ensure satellite lock files are cleaned up, Attempted to add some testing around these as well
      -Signifant speed ups for tests
      -Update formatting ordering in notes_on_merge_requests
      -Remove wiki schema update
      Fixes for search/search results
      -Search results was using by_project for a list of projects, updated this to use in_projects
      -updated search results to reference the correct (target) project
      -udpated search results to print both sides of the merge request
      
      Change-Id: I19407990a0950945cc95d62089cbcc6262dab1a8
      3d7194f0
  20. 19 Jun, 2013 1 commit
  21. 17 Jun, 2013 2 commits
  22. 14 Jun, 2013 1 commit
  23. 10 Jun, 2013 1 commit
  24. 09 Apr, 2013 1 commit
  25. 03 Apr, 2013 1 commit
  26. 15 Mar, 2013 1 commit
  27. 28 Feb, 2013 1 commit
  28. 19 Feb, 2013 1 commit
  29. 18 Feb, 2013 2 commits
  30. 22 Jan, 2013 1 commit
  31. 19 Jan, 2013 1 commit
  32. 03 Jan, 2013 1 commit
  33. 19 Nov, 2012 1 commit
  34. 30 Oct, 2012 1 commit
  35. 10 Oct, 2012 1 commit
    • Robb Kidd's avatar
      Separate observing of Note and MergeRequests · 16ceae89
      Robb Kidd authored
      * Move is_assigned? and is_being_xx? methods to IssueCommonality
      
        This is behavior merge requests have in common with issues. Moved
        methods to IssueCommonality role. Put specs directly into
        merge_request_spec because setup differs for issues and MRs
        specifically in the "closed" factory to use.
      
      * Add MergeRequestObserver. Parallels IssueObserver in almost every way.
      
        Ripe for refactoring.
      
      * Rename MailerObserver to NoteObserver
      
        With merge request observing moved out of MailerObserver, all that
        was left was Note logic. Renamed to NoteObserver, added tests and
        updated application config for new observer names. Refactored
        NoteObserver to use the note's author and not rely on current_user.
      
      * Set current_user for MergeRequestObserver
      
        IssueObserver and MergeRequestObserver are the only observers that
        need a reference to the current_user that they cannot look up on
        the objects they are observing.
      16ceae89
  36. 09 Oct, 2012 1 commit
  37. 27 Sep, 2012 1 commit