Re: improving our workflow with better tools - let's test things.

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/21/13 2:01 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

>
>Having worked with Carl for some years I respect his opinion,
>and for me his bottom line: "I'm seriously thinking of junking
>Gitlab because the benefit seems to be more promised than realized",
>based on his experience of actually using Gitlab on a real project
>clinches the matter.

Thanks for the kind words, Trevor.  But I think you may be reading too
much into my opinion.  I've *experimented* with GitLab on a real project
(I've only put about 3 weeks of work into it), and my project is only 3
developers at one physical site, so we can manage without *any* formal
tool if we need to.  And I *haven't* set up the equivalent of LilyPond's
infrastructure on my project, either.

And based on Joseph's comments, it appears that I may be misusing GitLab a
little bit -- we've not been using good descriptions of the merge requests
(in fact, we may have not been using *any* descriptions of the merge
requests) so the merge commits only have the git-generated statement about
the merge.  I'll try doing a better job on merge request descriptions and
see if I like that better.

I'm used to writing things in git commits, and not having to rewrite them
to push to staging, so having to rewrite for a merge request is something
to get used to, not necessarily something to hate.

Anyway, I think that it's too early to reject the possibility that
different tools could improve the contribution experience.  I'd recommend
that we give the team time to explore the setup of a GitLab workflow
before we make a decision.

Thanks,

Carl