GitLab FOSS merge requestshttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests2019-09-19T19:00:31Zhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/1748[WIP] GitLab pages (EE only)2019-09-19T19:00:31ZKamil Trzcińśki[WIP] GitLab pages (EE only)Fixes gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#3085
This is pretty naive approach for having static pages build on artifacts support:
1. When job named `pages` is defined in `.gitlab-ci.yml` the artifacts from this build will be used for serving static ...Fixes gitlab-org/gitlab-ce#3085
This is pretty naive approach for having static pages build on artifacts support:
1. When job named `pages` is defined in `.gitlab-ci.yml` the artifacts from this build will be used for serving static pages.
2. Build job needs to put all served files in `public/` and upload artifacts to GitLab.
3. GitLab detects and fires sidekiq job to unpack artifacts and put them into `shared/pages/group/project` folder.
4. We then have nginx config with dynamic virtual host support serving files from `shared/pages`
5. On every pages deploy we try to do atomic update using move filesystem operation
6. If no `pages` is defined in `.gitlab-ci.yml` we inject predefined job that is executed for `gl-pages` branch.
Example `.gitlab-ci.yml`:
```
pages:
image: jekyll/jekyll:builder
script:
- jekyll build --destination=public
artifacts:
- public/
only:
- master
```
Pros:
1. By using CI and docker images we can build static webpage with any tools, we are not limited to stripped down Jekyll server as it is on GitHub Pages.
1. By having Shared Runners it will work out of box on GitLab.com.
1. By using Docker by default it will work out of box on most installations.
Cons:
1. We need to build static page on CI and upload it to GitLab and unpack it later - this is time consuming
1. We serve only static files, no dynamic content allowed
This is proof of concept and misses:
1. Custom domain names (CNAME? file)
1. Custom directory with static files, currently `public/` is hardcoded
1. Backup support
1. Tests support
1. Documentation how to use it
1. Disable symlink following for Nginx
1. Ability to define domain on which the sites will be served.
1. Think how we should handle custom domains (if we want to have support for them)
The code is not yet nice, I'll make it better if we choose that this is a way how we want to do it.
@sytses @jacobvosmaer @marin @dzaporozhets What do you think?
It's based on build artifacts MR.
8.3https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/679merge_request: support MRs between forks of the same project2019-09-19T18:49:02Zusername-removed-152826merge_request: support MRs between forks of the same projectForks-of-forks aren't supported here.
This allows two users to create MRs between themselves if they fork a common repository rather than forcing collaboration within a single repo or forcing them to go up the tree to the common repos...Forks-of-forks aren't supported here.
This allows two users to create MRs between themselves if they fork a common repository rather than forcing collaboration within a single repo or forcing them to go up the tree to the common repository.https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14443Resolve "Private Avatars are not CDN compatible"2019-07-15T10:27:54ZTim ZallmannResolve "Private Avatars are not CDN compatible"## What does this MR do?
It adapts our avatar logic for project and groups to take into consideration if they are private or not and based on that it will use the currently set CDN Url or not for displaying. Part of this was the adapt...## What does this MR do?
It adapts our avatar logic for project and groups to take into consideration if they are private or not and based on that it will use the currently set CDN Url or not for displaying. Part of this was the adaption of `group_icon` method to deliver an actual image and not an url anymore so it is inline how `project_icon` works.
## Why was this MR needed?
So private project or group avatars also work with a set CDN
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/doc_styleguide.html)
- [ ] API support added
- [ ] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #38245
Closes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support-forum/issues/247610.0Tim ZallmannTim Zallmannhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14586Check for branch changes.2019-06-13T10:09:58ZJacob SchatzCheck for branch changes.## What does this MR do?
Checks for changes in branch and rejects and asks to create new branch if nessesary.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
...## What does this MR do?
Checks for changes in branch and rejects and asks to create new branch if nessesary.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/doc_styleguide.html)
- [ ] API support added
- [ ] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?10.1Luke "Jared" BennettLuke "Jared" Bennetthttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13428Fix regex to allow proper branch naming.2019-06-13T10:09:54ZJacob SchatzFix regex to allow proper branch naming.## What does this MR do?
Fix regex to allow proper branch names
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/12198#note_37134444
##...## What does this MR do?
Fix regex to allow proper branch names
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/12198#note_37134444
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- Tests
- [ ] All builds are passing
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] 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 it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/12198#note_371344449.5Luke "Jared" BennettLuke "Jared" Bennetthttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/48In section 5. Database, added a line to set a password for psql user.2019-06-09T14:27:11Zusername-removed-22610In section 5. Database, added a line to set a password for psql user.Added step for postgresql database & user creation.Added step for postgresql database & user creation.https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14768Update .gitignore2019-02-08T21:18:20ZStan HuUpdate .gitignorehttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/42024
## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this...https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/42024
## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/doc_styleguide.html)
- [ ] API support added
- [ ] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/2421Update Unicorn WorkerKiller memory limit to 400M ~ 450M, 200 - 250M is not en...2019-02-07T20:50:17Zusername-removed-198553huacnlee@gmail.comUpdate Unicorn WorkerKiller memory limit to 400M ~ 450M, 200 - 250M is not enough.
https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/42026
Too small a memory limit will restart Unicorn workers frequently, slowing down App response time.
I have upgraded GitLab 8.3 last week, the response time of users' feed...
https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/42026
Too small a memory limit will restart Unicorn workers frequently, slowing down App response time.
I have upgraded GitLab 8.3 last week, the response time of users' feedback is slower than before.
And this few days, I have checked the GitLab source codes, production server environment, not finding anything...
The requests runtime always have 1s ~ 2s increased, after about 3~5 requests.
Today, I found some error messages in log/unicorn.stderr.log
```
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:48.335035 #21670] WARN -- : #<Unicorn::HttpServer:0x007f0dcbfd3c18>: worker (pid: 21670) exceeds memory limit (281615360.0 bytes > 240519332 bytes)
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:48.335234 #21670] WARN -- : Unicorn::WorkerKiller send SIGQUIT (pid: 21670) alive: 29 sec (trial 1)
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:48.360816 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 21778 exit 0> worker=18
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:48.378316 #24029] INFO -- : worker=18 ready
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:48.610775 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 21670 exit 0> worker=16
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:48.627959 #24035] INFO -- : worker=16 ready
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:49.491209 #22202] WARN -- : #<Unicorn::HttpServer:0x007f0dcbfd3c18>: worker (pid: 22202) exceeds memory limit (280159744.0 bytes > 258389605 bytes)
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:49.491382 #22202] WARN -- : Unicorn::WorkerKiller send SIGQUIT (pid: 22202) alive: 25 sec (trial 1)
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:49.776747 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 22202 exit 0> worker=13
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:49.792827 #24097] INFO -- : worker=13 ready
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.087233 #23046] WARN -- : #<Unicorn::HttpServer:0x007f0dcbfd3c18>: worker (pid: 23046) exceeds memory limit (269072896.0 bytes > 253336298 bytes)
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.087394 #23046] WARN -- : Unicorn::WorkerKiller send SIGQUIT (pid: 23046) alive: 16 sec (trial 1)
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.163136 #22690] WARN -- : #<Unicorn::HttpServer:0x007f0dcbfd3c18>: worker (pid: 22690) exceeds memory limit (275195392.0 bytes > 238146923 bytes)
W, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.163284 #22690] WARN -- : Unicorn::WorkerKiller send SIGQUIT (pid: 22690) alive: 22 sec (trial 1)
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.401420 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 23046 exit 0> worker=10
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.436135 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 22690 exit 0> worker=1
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.437998 #24337] INFO -- : worker=10 ready
I, [2016-01-14T16:35:54.452401 #24340] INFO -- : worker=1 ready
W, [2016-01-14T16:36:01.059089 #22534] WARN -- : #<Unicorn::HttpServer:0x007f0dcbfd3c18>: worker (pid: 22534) exceeds memory limit (303286272.0 bytes > 248052412 bytes)
W, [2016-01-14T16:36:01.059290 #22534] WARN -- : Unicorn::WorkerKiller send SIGQUIT (pid: 22534) alive: 25 sec (trial 1)
I, [2016-01-14T16:36:01.319918 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 22534 exit 0> worker=22
I, [2016-01-14T16:36:01.333799 #24781] INFO -- : worker=22 ready
W, [2016-01-14T16:36:02.449341 #22315] WARN -- : #<Unicorn::HttpServer:0x007f0dcbfd3c18>: worker (pid: 22315) exceeds memory limit (273725440.0 bytes > 248645964 bytes)
W, [2016-01-14T16:36:02.449501 #22315] WARN -- : Unicorn::WorkerKiller send SIGQUIT (pid: 22315) alive: 35 sec (trial 1)
I, [2016-01-14T16:36:02.745377 #30515] INFO -- : reaped #<Process::Status: pid 22315 exit 0> worker=2
```
Unicorn Killer killed worker, and restart, so requests slowing down.
Same issue in gitlab.com, check online server log/unicorn.stderr.logyorickpeterse-stagingyorickpeterse-staginghttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/6247Ubuntu 16.04 packager.io amendment2018-12-13T22:34:51Zusername-removed-708015Ubuntu 16.04 packager.io amendment## What does this MR do?
Amends the packager.io configuration file to create a build for Ubuntu 16.04.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Verify no additional packages are required for Ubuntu 16.04 from ...## What does this MR do?
Amends the packager.io configuration file to create a build for Ubuntu 16.04.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Verify no additional packages are required for Ubuntu 16.04 from the Ubuntu 14.04 build requirements
## Why was this MR needed?
Packager.io does not support Ubuntu 16.04.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
N/A
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
Note that this is "just" a builder amendment, so many of these items are not relevant (e.g. documentation amendments, API support). Also, this commit was made using the Web UI and to support the requirement for the Changelog, I have had to make this change via two file edits. You may wish to cherry-pick just the .pcgr.yml file?
- [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
- [x] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [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)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
**Not available via the web UI**
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
None8.12Marin JankovskiMarin Jankovskihttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/11801WIP: Add guidelines for performance testing at scale2018-12-13T21:35:02ZNick ThomasWIP: Add guidelines for performance testing at scale## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs....## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [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 [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] 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 it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #31144Nick ThomasNick Thomashttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14769Update .gitignore2018-11-13T19:00:16ZStan HuUpdate .gitignore## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs....## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/doc_styleguide.html)
- [ ] API support added
- [ ] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14636WIP: Prepare 9.5.6 release2017-11-22T00:10:11ZJose Ivan Vargas LopezWIP: Prepare 9.5.6 releaseMain release issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/38529
### Summary
This MR prepares `9-5-stable` for %"9.5" (`9.5.6`) by merging `9-5-stable-patch-6` into `9-5-stable`.
### MR Filter for ~"Pick into Stable" MRs
http...Main release issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/38529
### Summary
This MR prepares `9-5-stable` for %"9.5" (`9.5.6`) by merging `9-5-stable-patch-6` into `9-5-stable`.
### MR Filter for ~"Pick into Stable" MRs
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests?label_name%5B%5D=Pick+into+Stable&milestone_title=9.5&scope=all&sort=updated_asc&state=merged
### MR Filter for ~"Pick into Backports" MRs
As well as picking merge requests explicitly marked for this release, you'll need to check those which need to be included in backports. Some ~"Pick into Backports" MRs won't be relevant for this release, or will have already been included; because of this you'll need to read the discussion on each MR below to decide if to include them:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests?label_name%5B%5D=Pick+into+Backports&scope=all&sort=updated_asc&state=merged
### Note to leave in MRs
```
Picked into https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/MERGE_REQUEST_ID, will merge into `9-5-stable` ready for `9.5.6`
/unlabel ~"Pick into Stable"
```
### Steps
1. Cherry-pick commits into this MR using the links for ~"Pick into Stable" and ~"Pick into Backports" above.
- This can be done by checking out `9-5-stable-patch-6` locally and using `git cherry-pick -m1 MERGE_COMMIT_SHA`
1. Push changes every so often and verify that the MR has been included
1. Leave a note in the MR so others can easily see that it is on track to be included in a release.
- If the MR no longer needs to be cherry-picked into further releases, remove the ~"Pick into Stable" label.
- Otherwise update the milestone to the highest release it needs to be picked into, and set ~"Pick into Backports" if it needs to be picked into other releases in addition to that one.
1. If there are any conflicts while picking MRs then attempt to resolve them; otherwise, create a new MR against the `9-5-stable-patch-6` branch and assign it to the author of the conflicting files.
1. Merge CE-to-EE using one of the workflows described in the [Merge CE stable changes to EE docs](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release-tools/blob/master/doc/picking-into-merge-requests.md#merge-ce-stable-changes-to-ee)
1. Once this MR is green merge it to stable, preferably with a manual fast-forward merge to minimize waiting time, as described in [Merging preparation MRs into stable](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release-tools/blob/master/doc/picking-into-merge-requests.md#merging-preparation-mrs-into-stable)
### Checklist
- [ ] Changes marked ~"Pick into Stable" have been picked
- [ ] Changes marked ~"Pick into Backports" have been picked
- [ ] Conflicts resolved
- [ ] No new commits have introduced directly to the stable branch while this MR was in progress. If there are, ensure these are merged into EE and check for a green pipeline after merging this MR.9.5Jose Ivan Vargas LopezJose Ivan Vargas Lopezhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14637WIP: Prepare 9.5.7 release2017-11-22T00:10:11ZJose Ivan Vargas LopezWIP: Prepare 9.5.7 releaseMain release issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/38686
### Summary
This MR prepares `9-5-stable` for %"9.5" (`9.5.7`) by merging `9-5-stable-patch-7` into `9-5-stable`.
### MR Filter for ~"Pick into Stable" MRs...Main release issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/38686
### Summary
This MR prepares `9-5-stable` for %"9.5" (`9.5.7`) by merging `9-5-stable-patch-7` into `9-5-stable`.
### MR Filter for ~"Pick into Stable" MRs
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests?label_name%5B%5D=Pick+into+Stable&milestone_title=9.5&scope=all&sort=updated_asc&state=merged
### MR Filter for ~"Pick into Backports" MRs
As well as picking merge requests explicitly marked for this release, you'll need to check those which need to be included in backports. Some ~"Pick into Backports" MRs won't be relevant for this release, or will have already been included; because of this you'll need to read the discussion on each MR below to decide if to include them:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests?label_name%5B%5D=Pick+into+Backports&scope=all&sort=updated_asc&state=merged
### Note to leave in MRs
```
Picked into https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/14637, will merge into `9-5-stable` ready for `9.5.7`
/unlabel ~"Pick into Backports"
```
### Steps
1. Cherry-pick commits into this MR using the links for ~"Pick into Stable" and ~"Pick into Backports" above.
- This can be done by checking out `9-5-stable-patch-7` locally and using `git cherry-pick -m1 MERGE_COMMIT_SHA`
1. Push changes every so often and verify that the MR has been included
1. Leave a note in the MR so others can easily see that it is on track to be included in a release.
- If the MR no longer needs to be cherry-picked into further releases, remove the ~"Pick into Stable" label.
- Otherwise update the milestone to the highest release it needs to be picked into, and set ~"Pick into Backports" if it needs to be picked into other releases in addition to that one.
1. If there are any conflicts while picking MRs then attempt to resolve them; otherwise, create a new MR against the `9-5-stable-patch-7` branch and assign it to the author of the conflicting files.
1. Merge CE-to-EE using one of the workflows described in the [Merge CE stable changes to EE docs](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release-tools/blob/master/doc/picking-into-merge-requests.md#merge-ce-stable-changes-to-ee)
1. Once this MR is green merge it to stable, preferably with a manual fast-forward merge to minimize waiting time, as described in [Merging preparation MRs into stable](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release-tools/blob/master/doc/picking-into-merge-requests.md#merging-preparation-mrs-into-stable)
### Checklist
- [ ] Changes marked ~"Pick into Stable" have been picked
- [ ] Changes marked ~"Pick into Backports" have been picked
- [ ] Conflicts resolved
- [ ] No new commits have introduced directly to the stable branch while this MR was in progress. If there are, ensure these are merged into EE and check for a green pipeline after merging this MR.9.5Jose Ivan Vargas LopezJose Ivan Vargas Lopezhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14052WIP: Make sure we don't always fetch_ref for merge request diffs2017-10-06T17:49:12Zusername-removed-423915WIP: Make sure we don't always fetch_ref for merge request diffs## What does this MR do?
Make sure we don't always fetch_ref for merge request diffs
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I am unsure where we should put this test, and the current test segfault on...## What does this MR do?
Make sure we don't always fetch_ref for merge request diffs
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
I am unsure where we should put this test, and the current test segfault on my computer...
## Why was this MR needed?
To speed up diffs creation.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [x] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #3629210.1username-removed-423915username-removed-423915https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14678Show stale instead of merged if the branch is old2017-10-06T13:57:38Zusername-removed-423915Show stale instead of merged if the branch is old## What does this MR do?
Show stale instead of merged if the branch is old
We consider the branch is old when the updated date was
3 months older than the default branch updated date.
## Are there points in the code the reviewe...## What does this MR do?
Show stale instead of merged if the branch is old
We consider the branch is old when the updated date was
3 months older than the default branch updated date.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Are people relying on that label?
Maybe we want to use another color for `stale`?
## Why was this MR needed?
By doing so, it would greatly improve the performance
in this page, because it's pretty costly to find if it's
merged or not when the branch is far behind.
We assume that when it's old, it's probably far behind.
The idea was brought up in:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/37429#note_42284280
## Screenshots (if relevant)
![Screen_Shot_2017-10-04_at_20.02.34](/uploads/eabb08b1535c5c02b5347bc07c3cef4a/Screen_Shot_2017-10-04_at_20.02.34.png)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/doc_styleguide.html)
- [ ] API support added
- [x] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
We're trying to improve `BranchesController#index`, https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/3742910.1username-removed-423915username-removed-423915https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13770WIP: Blob viewer support for new repo editor2017-10-05T11:13:54ZDouwe MaanWIP: Blob viewer support for new repo editorFixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/36102
@jschatz1 Blob JSON now includes a lot more information about the simple and rich blob viewers, which we can use to replicate current backend behavior on the frontend.Fixes https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/36102
@jschatz1 Blob JSON now includes a lot more information about the simple and rich blob viewers, which we can use to replicate current backend behavior on the frontend.10.0username-removed-502136username-removed-502136https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14037Send a confirmation email when the user adds a secondary email address2017-10-05T11:01:07Zusername-removed-194645Send a confirmation email when the user adds a secondary email address## What does this MR do?
When a user adds a secondary email address, we now send a conformation email. The Devise `confirmable` capability is used to deliver the email in the same way and format style as a new user email confirmation...## What does this MR do?
When a user adds a secondary email address, we now send a conformation email. The Devise `confirmable` capability is used to deliver the email in the same way and format style as a new user email confirmation.
I believe this feature is mostly complete. Feature and rspec tests are written, however the handling of the confirmation path (that the user links on) is not explicitly tested and probably should be.
A couple notes:
- At this time, I don't think a "Re-send confirmation" button on the email list is necessary. It's easy to simply remove and re-add the email, which will trigger another confirmation. That's something that could be considered in the future if there is too much friction in the process.
- I think the "Unconfirmed" label should be gray, typically by using the `label-default` class. However, the background is way too light. So for now I used the orange `label-warning`, though next to the Remove button, I almost think the Remove button should be red, `label-danger`
- It's unclear if we need to honor `user.can?(:receive_notifications)` for this feature. For now, assume it does not since the actual email sending process is handled by Devise.
- I added Spinach feature tests, as that was where this particular panel is currently tested. However I just read that you are trying not to add more Spinach tests. Maybe it's acceptable for now until that entire test gets moved to Rspec features.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
An index was added in the migration - I don't know if the DOWNTIME variable should be set or not.
@DouweM
## Why was this MR needed?
As mentioned in the issue, in order to use secondary emails for GPG verification, they must first be validated.
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/development/doc_styleguide.md)
- [ ] API support added
- [x] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [x] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes #37385, #28621, #3695910.1username-removed-194645username-removed-194645https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14696[Closed to rename branch] Normalize LDAP user DNs (downcase and remove excess...2017-10-05T08:34:33Zusername-removed-1144264[Closed to rename branch] Normalize LDAP user DNs (downcase and remove excess spaces)## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](htt...## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [Documentation created/updated](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/doc_styleguide.html)
- [ ] API support added
- [ ] Tests added for this feature/bug
- Review
- [ ] Has been reviewed by UX
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Frontend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Backend
- [ ] Has been reviewed by Database
- [ ] Conform by the [merge request performance guides](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
https://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/14656QA: Allow overriding the Chrome binary used via CHROME_BINARY env variable2017-10-05T08:33:01ZRobert SpeicherQA: Allow overriding the Chrome binary used via CHROME_BINARY env variableRobert SpeicherRobert Speicherhttps://staging.gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/merge_requests/13003WIP: Ensure pipeline action button (cancel/retry) is updated after action taken2017-10-05T00:27:17Zusername-removed-408230WIP: Ensure pipeline action button (cancel/retry) is updated after action taken## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](htt...## What does this MR do?
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
## Why was this MR needed?
## Screenshots (if relevant)
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [ ] [Changelog entry](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/changelog.html) added, if necessary
- [ ] [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 [merge request performance guides](http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/merge_request_performance_guidelines.html)
- [ ] 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 it does - rebase it please)
- [ ] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
## What are the relevant issue numbers?