Le lun. 4 juin 2018, à 15 h 17, Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> a écrit :
> On 04/06/18 17:58, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Looking at GitLab's features, their "labels" for status tracking, > >> > single-checkbox "squash merge" setting, and "resolvable discussions" > >> > would at least have a chance of meeting those expectations. > > > Frankly, I'd expect most systems to work better than our current split > > between SourceForge as an issue tracker and Rietveld (a > > Subversion-centric platform) for git commit reviews. > > > LibreOffice uses gerrit, but I get the impression that's not that user > friendly. And LO has the resources to put in to ironing out at least > some of the rough edges. > > Gerrit does not include a bug tracker, and that does seem like the main focus here. I must agree that Gerrit is not quite user-friendly, but it is currently going under a redesign (PolyGerrit, https://gitenterprise.me/category/polygerrit/) which is much more friendly. Wikimedia currently uses a combination of Phabricator ( https://www.phacility.com/) and Gerrit. Phabricator is a suite of applications, including for code review and an issue tracker, which includes tags and the like. It is much more user friendly, but is somewhat heavy. Importing tasks and code could be done. Étienne _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
