Le mer. 17 janv. 2018 à 18:06, Tim Sutton <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Denis Rouzaud <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to move on a bit the discussion. >> >> I'll try to summarize (and to be fair and honest): >> >> * The desire to switch to Github is strong >> 1 against: Sandro >> 5 neutral (or did not pronounce): Jürgen, Andreas, Richard, Paolo, Nyall >> 9 for: Borys, Matthias, Tom, Jorge, Régis, Bernard (says Redmine sucks), >> Loic, Tisharm and myself >> > > Is that Tom or Tim? For the record in an ideal world I would like to be on > GitHub too…. > sorry I forgot to count you in neutral at the time of writing, but I'm happy to count you in the pros ;) > > >> * But among those who spoke. I was hoping for a broader response. >> >> * I think we shouldn't mix switching to github (for technical reason) >> with switching to gitlab or so (for ethical reason). My original call was >> mainly for technical reasons and I believe, the end-users should decide on >> this. >> >> * As stated, ethical reason should rely on the PSC. Feel free to call for >> it. >> >> * I believe that we should first decide on what to do and next find the >> technical (and financial) solutions. And not the other way around. >> >> * Jorge volunteered to work on the topic. >> >> Additional **personal** notes: >> >> * I would be against moving all issues to github. That doesn't mean >> losing our history: let's just keep redmine online but locked. This has to >> be discussed and decided after deciding to move to github. >> >> * Another upcoming issue we HAVE to take care of: soon the PR number in >> GH will catch up with the issue number in Redmine....so bugfix commits will >> link to an unrelated PR... Keeping things untouched by fear of losing >> history is a suicide! >> >> >> Can we make a decision, and in this order: >> 1. decide to move (but to be applied if following questions are made >> possible) >> 2. what/when to move (empty list or everything or open issues, before the >> release, etc.) >> 3. how to move (volunteer, grant proposal, etc) >> >> And if we realize the decision is not feasible: we start again the >> procedure by stating we cannot do it. >> It would be useless to spend hours on trying to migrate the issues if we >> decide to start with an empty list -- just to illustrate. >> >> What is next? >> A loomio vote for this? >> > > So I would suggest raising a vote on the motion: > > “We should adopt GitHub issues for reporting issues in 3.0 and restrict > Redmine for the management of issues in QGIS 2.x”. > Great. Will you take care of it? > > After there are no more active 2.x releases, we make the Redmine tracker > read only and keep it around as an archive. We could put into the GitHub > issue template: “Only use this tracker for 3.x related issues” and similar > message on Redmine indicating that it should only be used for 2.x issues. > It will unfortunately leave us in the position where you need to check to > issue trackers for your issue which is going to suck a bit. > > Regards > > Tim > — > > > [image: KartozaNewLogoThumbnail.jpg] > > > > > *Tim Sutton* > > *Co-founder:* Kartoza > *Project chair:* QGIS.org > > Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source: > > Desktop GIS programming services > Geospatial web development > GIS Training > Consulting Services > > *Skype*: timlinux > *IRC:* timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net > >
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
