Re: migrating to GitLab

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Samstag, den 09.05.2020, 21:13 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> > On 5/9/20, 12:13 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Jonas Hahnfeld"
> > <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=address@hidden on behalf of
> > address@hidden> 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