2012/7/30 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > I'm not convinced that this is an advantage. I'd rather have one > central place to look for patches and their status (currently > google code, filtered by "has:Patch" and sorted based on patch > status[1]). If "not bug fixes" patches aren't listed in the same > place as "bug fix" patches, then we'll have two websites to check > and keep up-to-date.
I have never meant this. I meant that if we decide to adopt Gerrit, then *all* pending patches will be on Gerrit, but patches that don't come from bug reports on Google Code tracker needn't be added there. > In short: we already have a global eye on submitted patches, > provided that people use git-cl. Gerrit can provide this as well, and might offer a better global eye than a generic issue tracker, be it an excellent one like Google Code. > Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against switching the "backend" > from rietveld to gerrit. I just want to keep the google code > "frontend". We certainly agree on this as long as we use Rietveld for patches review, but if we find a better tool that provides a good frontend for patches review that can also integrate with Google code, then there's no reason to keep Google code as the frontend. > Ok. I just want to emphasize that you could easily spend 20 hours > setting this up, but then have the response be "no, we prefer the > old system". I've already evaluated this, so I don't mind :-) John _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
