On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:27:44AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > Nothing else has been advocated with a degree of seriousness as to warrant > consideration at this point. That's not to say we're done with those > options; if someone wants to put together a serious proposal, there's still > a little time. However, in order to practically consider the alternatives, > we need to have the serious proposals enumerated, and a credible plan for > addressing any deficiencies.
I don't understand. I thought we were collecting problems and *ideas* on how to solve them, not solid plans for a migration. You're basically comparing two options that have little or no work involved (not changing Gerrit, moving to an externally-maintained service that most of us know how it works) vs. plans that need *time* to install, play with and evaluate. Has anyone been allocated to that task? I don't like either of the two options but don't think I can just stop what I'm doing and spend a week evaluating e.g. Gitlab, Barkeep and Phabricator just to present my argument (or counterargument) to the Wiki page. My understanding of the process was that we would collect a broad set of arguments/ideas/proposals and people would be later assigned to the task of evaluating them and proposing a viable solution and a migration path (or not, and propose that we stay with Gerrit). The wiki page seems to also imply something like that by saying: Brion Vibber will lead this evaluation, with help from Chad Horohoe and David Schoonover. If it's me that misunderstood that's fine and I'm sorry. I'll just feel a bit silly for trying to argue for an impossible outcome :) Regards, Faidon _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
