On 10/21/13 2:01 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Having worked with Carl for some years I respect his opinion, >and for me his bottom line: "I'm seriously thinking of junking >Gitlab because the benefit seems to be more promised than realized", >based on his experience of actually using Gitlab on a real project >clinches the matter. Thanks for the kind words, Trevor. But I think you may be reading too much into my opinion. I've *experimented* with GitLab on a real project (I've only put about 3 weeks of work into it), and my project is only 3 developers at one physical site, so we can manage without *any* formal tool if we need to. And I *haven't* set up the equivalent of LilyPond's infrastructure on my project, either. And based on Joseph's comments, it appears that I may be misusing GitLab a little bit -- we've not been using good descriptions of the merge requests (in fact, we may have not been using *any* descriptions of the merge requests) so the merge commits only have the git-generated statement about the merge. I'll try doing a better job on merge request descriptions and see if I like that better. I'm used to writing things in git commits, and not having to rewrite them to push to staging, so having to rewrite for a merge request is something to get used to, not necessarily something to hate. Anyway, I think that it's too early to reject the possibility that different tools could improve the contribution experience. I'd recommend that we give the team time to explore the setup of a GitLab workflow before we make a decision. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
