| ... | ... | @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ As a result, we tend to use JIRA for the issue title and brief description, with |
|
|
|
On the topic of migrating the main 'CRM' project to Gitlab vs Github:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Github will not allow us to import the comment history while keeping the author intact. i.e. all comments will be imported as the same user.
|
|
|
|
* Having one big monolithic project on Github will make it very hard to triage issues. Only people with write permissions to the repo can add labels to issues.
|
|
|
|
* By controlling registration (on civicrm.org), we can keep Community Profiles and better engage with the community/developers.
|
|
|
|
* One of the main advantages of Github is that "everyone has an account", so it makes small contributions easier. However, currently CiviCRM currently requires going through a few hoops in order to submit a patch. By opting for Gitlab, we are only slightly simplifying the process (and improving the experience because of a better UI/UX). However, we make it easier to then participate in the other working-groups on Gitlab (it's unlikely we would ever move everything on Github).
|
|
|
|
* Gitlab is Free Software (although Open Core, where its business model is backed by en enterprise version, but they are also very supportive of FOSS projects using Gitlab). JIRA and Github are proprietary. This goes in contraction with CiviCRM's argument that "you own your CRM/data".
|
| ... | ... | |
