3 ms·

Oh, awesome. I was going to look at that later this afternoon. Cheers!

• seanp2k2 9y ago
  Launchpad is also incredibly opaque to people who don't use it often. It took me a very long time to find the actual release binaries and how to get the sources + build info for them. It was for some nginx modules in a PPA which depend on a newer nginx than what is stock in Ubuntu Trusty. Took literally half a day to get binary-compatible modules built from source (building dynamic modules and they must match all the configure flags of the nginx you're trying to inject them into).
  • justinjlynn 9y ago
    Indeed. Launchpad has an incredibly bespoke feeling -- it is very much intended for Canonical's particular use case and it's clear they don't intend to spend much time making the on-ramp terribly shallow for new users/admins. That said it certainly represents a massive amount of work and it has a number of compelling features.
  • rlpb 9y ago
    I can see how that that experience would have been poor for you, but I think it's a rather unfair comparison when comparing to GitHub. It's apples to oranges. Launchpad does more than git hosting, merge proposals ("pull requests") and bug tracking; it also manages the build infrastructure of a distribution and the publication of distribution sources and built binary packages. You did get tangled up doing the latter, but the former case is the context of this discussion. GitHub, GitLab and Sourceforge all cannot even do the much more complex tasks for which you had a poor UX on Launchpad.