On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:37:54AM -0600, Bruce Cran wrote: > On 9/14/15 11:15 PM, Bruce Cran wrote: > >On 9/14/15 11:13 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > >>Whether running a standalone system or a hosted service, I don't think > >>it makes sense to use one completely separate from code hosting. If > >>you're using github for code, it makes sense to use github for issues; > >>if you were using Phabricator for code review and maintenance, then > >>using it for issues makes sense. > > > >Agreed. For me, the nice thing about Phabricator is that it can either > >host or mirror both Git and SVN repositories. > > > >But if people would prefer to use Github then I'd be happy with that > >too, just as long as there's *some* way to track bugs that isn't an > >email archive! > > Ping? Should we set up test systems of either/both and see which > people prefer? Or do we need a "benevolent dictator" to just make a > decision and have people implement it?
The latter, I suspect, if we want it to happen. But I think the more important decision is "what's the canonical code hosting and review/merge tool?", and issue tracking should follow. If the canonical home of the code is on Github, use Github issues; if the canonical home of the code is self-hosted via a tool like Gerrit or Phabricator or Gitlab, use a self-hosted tracker on the same site, and if the code hosting tool includes one, use that. - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
