Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- dev:2017_new_tools [2018/02/17 07:14] – dyrcona
+++ dev:2017_new_tools [2023/06/22 09:09] – [Con] dyrcona
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
   * The API is hard to use, particularly for command-line applications
   * LP has timeout errors rather more often than one would like
-  * No direct links from the bugs to the commits fixing them.
+  * No direct links from the bugs to the commits fixing them (or viceversa, i.e a "fix bug 123" commit message links LP123 with that branch).
   * Bug search is limited, even with advanced search.  Most effective way to search is to start opening a new bug.
   * There's no way to edit, delete, or suppress a comment, which is a problem if somebody has inadvertently left in patron or a description of a security exploit.
   * There's no way to update a bug without triggering an email, which is a problem for batch updates.
+=== Huge list of software options out there OSS or not ===
+  * https://github.com/Kickball/awesome-selfhosted#project-management
 ==== Gitolite ====
@@ Line 66: / Line 70: @@
   * Ability to report or comment on bugs without requiring a user account
+  * Better reporting of statistics than is currently available via Launchpad API
 ===== Options =====
 ==== GitHub ====
+=== Notes ===
+Options for transitioning from Launchpad to Github:  https://lp2gh.readthedocs.io/en/latest/moving_issues.html?highlight=import
 === Pro ===
@@ Line 76: / Line 85: @@
   * Already being used by DIG for gists.
   * "Everyone" has a GitHub account.
+  * We can create a [[https://github.com/nonprofit|nonprofit organization]] that allows us to have unlimited users and private repositories once our 501c3 status is finalized.
 === Con ===
   * Offers no integrated i18n/l10n tools
-  * Private repos are not free (as in beer).
+  * <del>Private repos are not free (as in beer).</del>
   * Not F/OSS itself, so we can't host it ourselves if desired.
   * [[http://where.coraline.codes/blog/my-year-at-github/|Antisocial Coding: My Year At GitHub]]
+  * Will necessitate changes in workflow, particularly as regards working repositories. (This could be a good thing!)
+  * [[https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-starts-blocking-developers-in-countries-facing-us-trade-sanctions/|GitHub starts blocking developers in countries facing US trade sanctions]]
+  * [[http://techrights.org/2020/11/03/github-is-social-control/|GitHub is social control]]
+  * [[https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/jun/30/give-up-github-launch/|SFC Gives Up on Github]]
+  * It is a "bad look" for a F/OSS project to use proprietary hosting solutions.
-==== GitLab ====
+==== GitLab Community Edition ====
 === Pro ===
-  * F/OSS: We can host it ourselves or host at gitlab.com
+  * We can host it ourselves or host at gitlab.com
   * Includes GitLab CI so we could retire both buildbot + current live testing with full Docker-based CI
   * Anyone can sign up without administrator intervention.
   * Users can be in groups that can all access the same repos.
   * Has lots of plugins and applications that could add some of the "missing features."
+  * Can integrate with LDAP for community sign-on.
 === Con ===
@@ Line 101: / Line 117: @@
   * We don't have as much control over branch permissions as gitolite offers. This likely means we'll lose the working repository in favor of individual developer repositories. (Note: gitlab used to be based on gitolite but is no longer.)
   * [[https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/install/requirements.html|Recommends 2 cores and 4GB of RAM for up to 100 users.]] Dyrcona found this to be slow with less than 10 users in testing.
+  * Anyone with an account can create their own projects/repositories. We're gonna need a lot more disk space.
+  * To get many of the best features, we would need a license for the Enterprise Edition. (See https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/#self-managed). This would cost the community $6,000/year for 125 users. (That number is based on the number of user keys in the gitolite configuraiton.)
+  * A self-managed/self-hosted solution would still require some administrator overhead, perhaps as much as gitolite.
+  * Going with the community edition will necessitate work flow changes, particularly as regards working repositories. (This could be a good thing!)
-==== Phabricator ====
+==== Fork LP ====
 === Pro ===
-  * Open Source (Apache License 2.0)
+  * We could add what we want without fundamentally changing existing workflows on ourselves
-  * More to be determined.
 === Con ===
-  * No hardware recommendations, other than run it on a [[https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/installation_guide/|"real computer."]]
+  * It would be a lot of work
-  * More TBD
-==== Fork LP ====
+==== GOGS ====
+https://gogs.io
 === Pro ===
-  * We could add what we want without fundamentally changing existing workflows on ourselves
+  * Ridiculously easy to set up
+  * GitHub-like features/interface
 === Con ===
-  * It would be a lot of work
+  * May not be robust enough for bug tracking
+==== Atlassian Open-Source ====
+Atlassian products are free for open-source use on application to them:
+https://www.atlassian.com/software/views/open-source-license-request
+This is used by FOLIO project
+=== Pro ===
+  * Very feature rich, JIRA for bug tracking is an industry standard tool
+  * Can be self-hosted
+=== Con ===
+  * Not open-source
+==== Gerrit ====
+=== Pro ===
+=== Con ===
+==== savannah.nongnu.org ====
+=== Pro ===
+=== Con ===
 ====== Translation tools ======
 If we move to a bug tracking / repository tool that does not include translation support (and most alternatives do not), then we need to consider what we would like to do for translations.
+===== POEditor.com =====
+https://poeditor.com/
 ===== Pootle =====