Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[Urs Liska]

Am 18.09.2013 09:46, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Urs Liska writes:
> >
> > > You are doing code reviews through a web interface already, isn't it?
> > > And this is because that's a quite natural way to communicate, comment
> > > on code etc. You can't do _that_ with plain Git.
> > To me, this is one the most unnatural and therefore annoying parts of
> > current development.  I would much rather use git the way it was
> > designed and used by its designer and many other free software projects,
> > email patches to this list and review through email.
> Well, it facilitates looking at stuff in context (though that's fairly
> trivial to do by actually applying the patch in a cloned repository, and
> in-file-system clones of git repositories are _really_ cheap).
>
> It's pretty lousy for actually incorporating the feedback which, to be
> fair, is mostly due to Rietveld not being made for Git.

So (as an uninformed shot in the dark) wouldn't it make sense to switch 
to a code review tool which _is_ made for Git?
(Equally uninformed:) I just read about Gerrit which "simplifies Git 
based project maintainership by permitting any authorized user to submit 
changes to the master Git repository, rather than requiring all approved 
changes to be merged in by hand by the project maintainer".

> The one area where I'd consider a web interface a possibly good tradeoff
> of matching tools to skills would be translation work: that could/should
> be a lot more crowdsourced than it is now.  It turns out that organizing
> and tracking incremental translation work requires being able to work
> with various scripts and stuff: the translation workflow does not
> benefit from web-based tools at all.  As a consequence, we have at most
> one translator per language.
That's what I said. This kind of work would greatly benefit from 
allowing 'anybody' to contribute directly to a repository, with the 
'developers' only having to approve or reject the change.

Urs