On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Vincent Picavet (ml) < vincent...@oslandia.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > A bit late to the party, and I think for such an important matter it is > good to wait a bit to hear more voices. > Me too. > I have mixed feelings about switching to a new issue manager without the > history for QGIS3, and will not argue here for a specific roadmap. > I also have mixed feelings about the two options given (stay on redmine and switch to github), I see pros and cons in both options. What I'd probably miss in github are categories (tags are not categories) and the stored queries (like, "Regressions + Master + HighPriority + Server"). I might be wrong and perhaps github also offers the a.m. features. >From the ethical point of view, I like the proposal by Vicent in this email because of the open source nature of gitlab and vendor lock-in parachute. Additionally, if we have to make a switch it would be probably better to explore if gitlab offers CI technical advantages over gihub+travis that has proven to be the most unreliable piece of our development stack (random failures for unknown reasons). That said, if we need to choose between staying on redmine and moving to github, I would be (very) slightly in favour of moving to github, mainly because of the advantages of a better integration with PRs and code comments, but the best move IMO would be to explore if gitlab is viable and better option and perhaps wait a bit and eventually move to gitlab, the reason is that if we move to github now, we won't be able to move to another platform in a reasonable amount of time. [...] > > But I think the GitHub vs GitLab debate in case of switching is still open. > > -- Alessandro Pasotti w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
