openerp-community team mailing list archive

[Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero <pedro.baeza@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Olivier,

The reasons you give are strong enough to balance the situation to
Launchpad, so for me the debate is closed in this topic.

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards.


2013/10/25 Olivier Dony <odo@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> On 2013-10-25 16:45, Nhomar Hernández wrote:
>
>>
>> 2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero <pedro.baeza@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:pedro.baeza@xxxxxxxxx>**>
>>
>>
>>     I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source
>>     code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis
>> CI
>>     does. Anyway, I also see more interesting Launchpad / GitHub debate.
>>     @Fabien, have you talked about the switch internally?
>>
>>
>> I think It is a different discussion.
>>
>
> Yes we've discussed this internally and with a few contributors in the
> past (including Nhomar lately ;-)), but this is indeed quite off-topic.
>
>
>
>  1.- Travis doesn't have "Auto Build ready to test" feature, and is
>> written in
>> Ruby and double licence problem.
>>
>> 2.- Launchpad is totally open and runbot.
>>
>> 3.- Runing runbot "Teach You" more deeply openerp, Running Travis "teach
>> you
>> ...." well Travis.
>>
>> 4.- The translation management is not possible/comparable in github like
>> in
>> Launchpad.
>>
>
> The translation management is the most critical point that was raised
> indeed. There seems to be no decent integrated translation system for
> GitHub. One of the unique features of Launchpad is the integrated UI with
> translation workflow, reviewer/contributor modes, bidirectional automated
> translation sync with code branches, etc. And even with external tools like
> transifex, GitHub still seems very far away from offering an alternative.
>
> There are other feature we would miss on GitHub (e.g. fine-grained access
> control, full-featured bugtracker, mailing-lists, etc.). You can find a
> coarse-grained comparison of their features on wikipedia [1].
>
>
>
>  5.- The transition is not only "Move the branches" we need to move
>> internal
>> process, internal developments that automate bzr projects and so on.
>>
>
> Exactly. Switching to a different project platform is a very expensive
> thing to do for everyone, as we have critical work processes that depend on
> the platform, and a large community. If we want to change, the new platform
> must bring a huge benefit immediately, and the move must not damage our key
> community processes (Translations - Bug reports - Contributions).
>
> Currently, it seems GitHub's nice-to-have features do not yet balance the
> loss of critical features.
>
> Some have advocated for a partial switch in order to preserve the key
> features we need from LP, such as only moving the code hosting to Github.
> This seems even worse because we would also lose key integratoin features
> such as auto-linking commits and merge proposals to bug reports, etc.
>
>
>
>  IMHO: This change should be approved / done at least 6 moths __before__
>> move
>> something, but even, compare bzr and git is a matter of religion because
>> both
>> have the "same" posibilities i we read "Both" manuals.
>>
>> BTW, it is only my  opinion, the Positive impact is so little compared
>> with the
>> cost it can bring.
>>
>
> Also since GitHub has no import system for Launchpad projects, we need to
> address the mess we'll have once half the information is in LP and the
> other half in GitHub: 2 places to look for bugs and history, a lot of
> confusion for users and contributors, and so on.
>
> There are definitely other priorities for the project right now...
>