Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 5/9/20, 12:13 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Jonas Hahnfeld" > <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of > hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > <snip> > So what's the feeling about the migration? go / no-go for tomorrow? > > ->CS Do we have a revision to the CG to go with the migration? I > haven't seen any red flags that cause me to oppose the migration. I > love the idea of going from 3 platforms (Savannah, SourceForge, > Rietveld) to one (GitLab). But I'm a little conflicted, as I prefer > the code review experience on Rietveld.
I think we'll all need some time to seriously adapt. Our current setup is only working semiautomatically and a lot of pieces are filled in manually by James. The Gitlab setup will be a lot more standardised and thus should be easier to work out of the box, but we certainly would want to keep some pieces of our workflow and of those who actually make it work, while preferably getting to work with more standardised scripts hopefully mostly managed by other people. I would say it makes most sense to stash most feelings of conflict for a month or two, then revisit them and see how they have developed. > ->CS At any rate, I think that we should have appropriate CG > instructions at the time we make the switch. They don't have to be > perfect (the CG has a much lower editing bar than the NR), but they > need to be in place, IMO. It's sort of a hen and egg problem: if we want to have all that before, it increases the workload for those preparing the migration and they have to guess. I totally agree that the CG should reflect the new workflows. But at the time we do the switch, those new workflows are still in flux. -- David Kastrup
