Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 16.09.2013 12:50, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:49:42AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>> What's wrong with GitHub, anyway?
>>>> It requires separate accounts and credentials (much more likely to be a
>>>> target for attacks), has its own "terms of service", may choose to
>>>> discontinue projects based on commercial criteria, can cause tool
>>>> lock-in and so on, relies on its own proprietary software.
>>> All the above is true, but github also provides a nicer way for
>>> developers to interact with git, by at least one order of
>>> magnitude.
>> So the question is what we should be telling the Savannah operators to
>> make working on GNU projects using Git more feasible.
>>
> What about asking them to provide Gerrit as  a service?

As far as I understand, Gerrit is not something similar to the full
"project management" flavor of GitHub but it would cover our Rietveld
angle.

> As far as I've read:
> - LilyPond uses Rietveld, which isn't designed for git workflows.
> - Rietveld isn't integrated in the process of getting code into
> lilypond/master,
>   but rather an artificial detour.
> - For example the issue of commit messages that are finally pushed
>   and don't match the reviewed code is probably related to that.
> - Gerrit _is_ designed for git workflows.
> - You could grant developer accounts to, say, anybody expressing
> serious intentions to contribute
> - These could have the right to push the Gerrit

Ah, so make the gerrit repo a separate project with its separate user
management?  That could work.

> - The core developers have the right to approve/reject proposals
>   as well as pushing directly to the main repo
> - Approval of a patch immediately merges it into the main code base.

Not sure about that, but one could work out procedures.  One would have
to see how large the part Gerrit takes in our submission process would
turn out.

-- 
David Kastrup