On 29/11/17 09:33, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Or maybe I miss the main reason why we are not using Github issues at > all?
As you said, the last time we evaluated it, it simply wasn't suitable. The situation is more comparable now, however (in addition to BZ link and private issues) I think we would also lose flexibility. In the the last week or so, Marek and Walden have both proposed new plugins that could be added to our Redmine - not possible if we go to GH, we'd be stuck with waiting for them to implement new features (and in my experience that's not fast at all). That's always the downside of going proprietary over open source ;) > I like github integration with PRs, speed and good reliability (only > few blackouts per year) and also new features like projects. On the > other hand, it's full commitment to something not under our control > (today we can easily move our git somewhere else, but we still loose > all PRs). Side note: Actually the PR data is accessible over the API, and I have *all* of it in a MySQL DB. Yes, that's a lot of data - once I learn more about data analysis (studying R at the moment :P) I will be doing things with it. > This email is just to discuss possibilities, I know that migration > to Github would be painful and even too expensive or perhaps > technically not doable (how to migrate so many tickets). It's a pitty > that github is now getting features it really needed. I think that's the key point. There's no doubt we *could* make GH Issues fit our workflow (or any other bugtracker) - but the effort to migrate 20,000+ Redmine issues to multiple repos, as well as change all the automation, is more than likely not worth it. There needs to be a *huge* win for moving to GH Issues to make it happen, and I'm only seeing side-grades and incremental stuff, I'm afraid. > I also really like gitlab which is packed with super nice features, > theoretically migration to something like that would be easier (open > source). On the other hand, we'd need to host this and one thing is > having redmine down for an hour, different thing is inability to > push. But this is definitely a possibility, we also have some know > how already running our internal instance. I'd be +1 for GitLab-for-everything, assuming we can figure out some reliablity, as you say. Maybe using Gitlab.com is an option. But *wow* that is a lot of work :D Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
