On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:55:28AM +0100, joakim@...1974... wrote:
Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> writes:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:16:36AM -0800, mathog wrote:
On 05-Feb-2016 05:40, Eduard Braun wrote:
In general I would avoid splitting the code repository from the bug tracker as those two are closely related and often intertwined. It hinders efficiency a lot when tracking bugs elsewhere.
I agree with that - everything in one place. Moving to git is fine so long as the entire history of the project makes the transition, all the bugs, all the revisions, and so forth. There shouldn't be anything "left behind" on launchpad. Not that I have any idea how one would go about doing this sort of migration, never having used git except to download entire projects for a local build.
I'll throw out another thing maybe worth considering is Phabricator
This is a very powerful platform, and highly customizable, providing an integrated solution for bugs, patchreview, and a heap of other stuff as well as git hosting. I've had some limited experience using it on Enlightenment and Wayland, and it gets very high marks from people who use it.
Personally I find it much more on the complex side compared with github/gitlab, with a bit more of a learning curve to it. But it has a ton of functionality; I've only barely scratched the surface as a user but what I've seen has been quite powerful and well implemented. It also has a JSON API for making our own tools or apps to interface directly with it. The out-of-the-box defaults are also not quite what we'd want (e.g. bug tracker is not public by default). So it'd require a fair bit of setup and tuning.
But if it's felt that we need integrated bug/patch tracking and are worried that gitlab might not be up to snuff, Phabricator might be the next thing to look at.
There seems to be some organizational drama going on at Github right now:
http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-2016-2
My dystopian prediction is that Github will eventually turn into Sourceforge.
In my view, moving to Gitlab would avoid that risk. Gitlabs core feature set is free software. If Gitlab also turns into sourceforge, Inkskape can set up its own Gitlab instance, at least in principle. (I have set up a Gitlab instance, and it is fairly straghtforward)
There do seem to be a lot of parallels between github today and sourceforge back when. SourceForge was also "the standard" at one point, then turned focus entirely to commercialization and kind of stagnated.
Bryce