Am Samstag, den 09.05.2020, 21:13 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: > 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.
To add to this: It's my understanding that the uploaded documentation is built only for releases. So we should strive to update at least the links in time for 2.21.2 / defer the release until then. But even if I had the changes ready for the CG (which I have not yet, mostly for the reasons outlined by David above), it could at most hit master which people can only build after they found the sources. That said, I plan to prepare a patch updating the public web page, in particular the link to issue. This is likely the most important place for users. Developers should be subscribed to lilypond-devel (or look at the archives) and the recent message volume makes it fairly obvious that the tooling is currently in a transition period. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
