- 13 Jul, 2016 2 commits
-
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
- 12 Jul, 2016 38 commits
-
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
changes the usage of simpleprojectdetails to already implemented basicprojectsdetails and changes the url to a more reader friendly format
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
changes the usage of simpleprojectdetails to already implemented basicprojectsdetails and changes the url to a more reader friendly format
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-
Dmitriy Zaporozhets authored
Remove icons from some buttons which already has text Related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/18324 * remove plus icon from new milestone button on group milestone page * remove plus icon from new project button on group projects page * remove plus icon from milestone page See merge request !5050
-
Jacob Vosmaer (GitLab) authored
Expire the branch cache after `git gc` runs Due to a stale NFS cache, it's possible that a branch lookup fails while `git gc` is running and causes missing branches in merge requests. I'm not totally convinced this is the right solution, but since we and our customers are experiencing this issue quite frequently, I'm taking a stab at it. Possible workaround for #15392 See merge request !5160
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Be explicit on merge request discussion variables ## What does this MR do? To avoid conditionals and to messing with request.format and accept headers to know in which format we're going to response I've decided to be explicit in when we need the discussion variables ## Why was this MR needed? Solve a bug https://sentry.gitlap.com/gitlab/staginggitlabcom/issues/8492/ ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Closes #19702 ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added - ~~[ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)~~ - ~~[ ] API support added~~ - Tests - [ ] Added for this feature/bug - [ ] All builds are passing - [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides) - [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please) - [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) See merge request !5204
-
Fatih Acet authored
Style of import project buttons were fixed in the new project page. ## What does this MR do? I have fixed style of import project buttons in the new project page. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? I don't think so. ## Why was this MR needed? Because the buttons area hasn't looked well. Before this, it was scattered. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? Fixes #19467 ## Screenshots (if relevant) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_17.12.11](/uploads/35918f16b1b4d671ad33faf6caf530a2/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_17.12.11.png) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_17.11.24](/uploads/3030e1ecb7d109fbf4552987b4bfb242/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_17.11.24.png) ![Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_17.11.50](/uploads/eb8ede86c256a2356b0210f3876c0143/Screen_Shot_2016-07-11_at_17.11.50.png) ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added - [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md) - [ ] API support added - Tests - [ ] Added for this feature/bug - [ ] All builds are passing - [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides) - [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please) - [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) See merge request !5183
-
Stan Hu authored
Due to a stale NFS cache, it's possible that a branch lookup fails while `git gc` is running and causes missing branches in merge requests. Possible workaround for #15392
-
Paco Guzman authored
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Fix expandable diffs ## What does this MR do? Fix expandable diffs and the master build. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? Nope. ## Why was this MR needed? https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/4776#note_13003494 Doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry etc. See merge request !5200
-
Dmitriy Zaporozhets authored
Add rule about adding new header tab to the ui guide To address cases like https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/3749#note_12994215 See merge request !5188
-
Dmitriy Zaporozhets authored
-
Rémy Coutable authored
Update the health_check gem to the latest release ## What does this MR do? Update the health_check gem to the latest release, which allows us to drop some of our code for overwriting the email check ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added - [ ] ~~[Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)~~ - [ ] ~~API support added~~ - Tests - [ ] ~~Added for this feature/bug~~ - [ ] All builds are passing - [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides) - [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please) - [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) See merge request !5186
-
Rémy Coutable authored
api: expose {should,force}_remove_source_branch ## What does this MR do? Exposes the `should_remove_source_branch` and `force_remove_source_branch` booleans via the API. ## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check? I don't think so. ## Why was this MR needed? See the commit message. ## What are the relevant issue numbers? N/A ## Screenshots (if relevant) N/A ## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria? - [x] [CHANGELOG](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CHANGELOG) entry added - [x] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md) - [x] API support added - Tests - [x] Added for this feature/bug - [ ] All builds are passing - [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides) - [ ] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please) - [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits) See merge request !5184
-
tiagonbotelho authored
-