Re: "mc is over!?" - post by Ilia Maslakov on Russian-speaking IT site

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 02:47:02PM +0200, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
Under these circumstances, I can stick my own (very negative) opinion
of Github issue tracker somewhere deep down, and accept that the tools
are chosen by those people who do the real work. If they like Github
issues and they make them productive, so be it.

i'll use that as a launchpad for some general musings of
state-of-the-art hosting tools i'm aware of. this is an invitation to
discussion, and i find it interesting beyond the scope of mc.

it's obvious at first sight that the github issue tracker provides much
less formal structure than trac. and trac ain't that great to start with
(especially on the workflow side, at least as configured for mc (i
don't know what would be possible with a current version)).

in github, almost everything is done with labels. it's nice and
uncomplicated, but simply doesn't scale.

on the migration side, it seems that it's impossible to fake issue
reporters. incidentally, that's one of the two problems that i fixed
last year in mc's issue import to trac because i found it so annoying.
most advanced import tool i found:

i find github's code review system terrible; it doesn't encourage the
workflow i want (every commit being polished), and it doesn't scale,
luckily, there is to alleviate the problem.

there is also an open-source clone of github: gitlab.
it is really a look-alike, so it has pretty much all downsides of
github, with the addition that no gerrit integration exists (yet).
on the upside, the issue import is probably better. tool:

there is also bitbucket, but the free version is limited to teams of
five, whatever that may mean in practice. anyone here has experience
with it?

yet another fully integrated solution (for own hosting) would be
phabricator. no personal experience with it, either.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]