On 27/09/2012, at 3:23 AM, Hugh Brock wrote: <snip> > I have a radical suggestion I would like to throw out for comment: > > I was talking to Matt Hicks the other day, of OpenShift, and he claims > they are moving *their entire agile setup* to GitHub. Basically they're > going to ditch stories in Rally and move them to the GitHub issue > tracker instead. > > Now, I'm the first to admit that the GitHub issue tracker isn't the > greatest tool ever to come down the pike, but you have to love the > integration with the rest of the GitHub services and so on. > > So, rather than go through a whole dance with Redmine and the wiki and > the website and GitHub Pages and so on, would it be worth considering > just moving the whole shooting match to GitHub? If it's good enough for > OpenShift, I'd think it would be good enough for us. > > (For the record, OpenShift has a rather nice "only the bot can merge > pull requests after it makes sure all the tests pass" setup that keeps a > tight lid on accidental merges. I think we would need something like > this too.)
That doesn't make sense to me? Here's my recent pull request to crankcase, which was merged by danmcp (he's not a bot :>): https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/497 They do have a bot running around that checks _if_ things can still be merged (ie no merge conflict). But it doesn't seem to do more than that. + Justin > Let me know what you think, > --Hugh > > -- > == Hugh Brock, [email protected] == > == Engineering Manager, Cloud BU == > == Aeolus Project: Manage virtual infrastructure across clouds. == > == http://aeolusproject.org == > > "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m > not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." > --Robert McCloskey -- Aeolus Community Manager http://www.aeolusproject.org
