2 ms·
Interesting stuff, thank you. Wasn't aware if this. Personally I am mostly skeptical of more tools. Some developers have challenges to understand how the basic
by usr1106 5y ago
Interesting stuff, thank you. Wasn't aware if this.
Personally I am mostly skeptical of more tools. Some developers have challenges to understand how the basic stuff works. While automation can reduce manual work and mistakes it adds also complexity and adds new points of failure.
Of course there are always exceptions of truly useful tools you don't want to miss. It just depends where to draw the line.
Of course it also depends on the size of the organization and the teams. We have nobody even remotely dedicated to tools, "ordinary" developers maintain them as "side jobs".
- mathstuf 5y agoIt's a tool just like the forge is. I think of these things more as building blocks to put your desired workflow together. I doubt forges will ever handle reformatting, merging, or back porting how we want, so we'll always use something else additionally I think. We could also drop those patterns, but I foresee that meaning we don't have older supported releases instead. Even this tool is a "side job", but it did have focused development to get it off the ground. We were migrating from a combo of patched Gerrit and gitosis with custom server side commands to implement these things before. In 2015, no forge was even close to having these things, we had to implement it ourselves. Neither Gitlab not GitHub had a good enough API then either, but we could patch and contribute to Gitlab at least. There are other workflow decisions made by Gitlab as well that I prefer too anyways.