John Mandereau <john.mander...@gmail.com> writes: > 2012/7/30 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: >> I'm not convinced that this is an advantage. I'd rather have one >> central place to look for patches and their status (currently >> google code, filtered by "has:Patch" and sorted based on patch >> status[1]). If "not bug fixes" patches aren't listed in the same >> place as "bug fix" patches, then we'll have two websites to check >> and keep up-to-date. > > I have never meant this. I meant that if we decide to adopt Gerrit, > then *all* pending patches will be on Gerrit, but patches that don't > come from bug reports on Google Code tracker needn't be added there. > > >> In short: we already have a global eye on submitted patches, >> provided that people use git-cl. > > Gerrit can provide this as well, and might offer a better global eye > than a generic issue tracker, be it an excellent one like Google Code.
There is no point arguing this. We can't do a reasonable side-by-side comparison and/or transition if we don't work with the same frontend. The decision to change the frontend would be a rather invasive one, and one can't use more than one frontend in parallel since the point of the frontend is to provide a _complete_ overview over existing issues. > We certainly agree on this as long as we use Rietveld for patches > review, but if we find a better tool that provides a good frontend for > patches review that can also integrate with Google code, then there's > no reason to keep Google code as the frontend. Again: wrong time to argue this. One thing after the other. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
