Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: > Hi all, > > 2013/7/18 Graham Percival <[email protected]>: >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:48:52PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: >>> Three options I can think of. 1) use something other than Google. >> >> Github has an API; we could make an actual "lilypond" organization >> with them. Granted, that's still putting one's eggs in a >> commercial company's basket, but at least github is focused on >> development rather than google's rather broad interests. > > I think using github is a good idea. As a bonus, github users (and > there are many of them) will probably be more likely to contribute to > lilypond.
There are more users of Google, and I doubt that this has been responsible for a significant number of contributions. > Also, github has a quite well thought-out web UI, which allows for > example to make a commit using a web interface. This might make > things a bit more accessible to newcomers. > >> I don't think we want to go with self-hosting (too much admin), > > agreed. I don't see a lot of alternatives either. We bounced around the idea of using a git-centric tool (like gerrit) for the reviews, but that does not buy us an issue tracker. It might be a good idea, however, to avoid investing significant effort into interfacing with infrastructure for which no source is available. If the stuff is at least available, we have the option of setting up a server of our own when service gets discontinued. At least there is a reasonable expectation that working with git is not likely to be a second consideration with GitHub, like it is with Rietveld. Though I think that at the current point of time, it's the issue tracker operation rather than Rietveld that's our problem. But when moving our issue tracking off Google anyway, the incentive to keep interfacing with the SVN-centric Rietveld might become weaker. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
