2016-02-08 13:37 GMT+01:00 Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...>:

On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 11:44 +0100, Sebastian Zartner wrote:
> > I'll pass it along to the team. We don't discuss product decisions
> or timelines publicly like that, so I can't share more information
> about why this particular subset was chosen. I do hope it can be
> expanded in the future, though.

That's the biggest difference between open source projects and
proprietary ones. Not just the code freedom, but the willingness to be
open about product development, internal thoughts, attempts and
failures. Keeping things hidden from customers isn't healthy IMO[1]

I'm not really happy about any of these solutions to be honest.

But we should keep looking and testing different possible solutions.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

[1] Something Canonical got wrong a lot.

"Any of these solutions [...]"...Do you mean both Github and Gitlab?

Yea, keeping product development plans behind closed door leaves users in a sort of powerlessness state. You don't get any response about the future, if there is any hope at all for the feature to be implemented nor have you the ability to fix it yourself due to closed source. For JIRA I had a similar case with Atlassian, no response at all if the bug fix was prioritized. I know I needed a feature in Gitlab a year or so ago also; but it was only available in Gitlab Enterprise but others needed that feature as well in Community edition and implemented it themselves. The end result was that Gitlab developers open sourced their closed source version of it.

I will keep testing Gitlab CE and gitlab.com, gitlab seems to have better issue management than Github.

Maybe officially run everything on Gitlab with a official github mirror that we can connect to travis-ci?

Christoffer Holmstedt