Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 09:50 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > > >> We don't need to rehash that the current system sucks. > > > > This would also be my comment on the initial message: It's again saying > > how bad the current process is. It would be far more constructive to > > make a concrete proposal about how to do it instead. > > I want us to come to consensus what the problems are and before we try to fix > them. If we have no consensus about where we're trying to go, then a concrete > proposal will also generate controversy. > > > It is useful to observe how the current system sucks: if we agree on what the > problems are, we can have a shot at spelling out our requirements. If there > is consensus of what we want from a process (the requirements), we can > evaluate options (eg. github, gitlab, gerrit etc.) against our requirements, > and select tradeoffs that suit ourselves best. > > > There is a list at the bottom of properties of what I think a better process > looks like. > > I am sufficiently versed with github and gerrit to be able to build something > that could work, but doing so is a lot more work than discussing things, so I > like to be sure I am building something that solves the problem. > > I get the feeling you don't like where this is going, but maybe you could > tell us what you think are problems, and what you would like to see in a > different process.
That's not really my point, I agree that we should improve the process. I think everybody has a list of wishes such as yours, the major points from mine would be: * have less tools to work with (currently SF, Rietveld, Savannah) * use tools that agree on a particular SCM (git-cl's history of SVN and the custom code to open issues on SF) * use tools that are open and / or have an active future (experience with Google Code, context of SF, requirements of GNU). I don't see why we need to have a final list of detailed points that we all agree upon before sketching a process. Note that "proposal" in my view doesn't mean there needs to be a working prototype. I would be happy to merely have a (subjective) list of points to address followed by how concrete tools would solve them and why others don't. Would it help you if I posted something like this? > if you can only work with concrete proposals, I guess you'll have to wait > until the rest of us come to that point. Okay. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part