[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ui-best-practices-working-group] Information/Material

From: <ui-best-practices-working-group-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: UX Group <ui-best-practices-working-group@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:41 PM
To: UX Group <ui-best-practices-working-group@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ui-best-practices-working-group] Information/Material

On 09/27/2016 06:37 PM, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
It's not so much about the review vs pr workflow - although Gerrit is kind of an alien to a majority of Git users compared to GitHub. This really is about visualization. Neither cgit nor Gerrit offer anything near the capabilities of browsing and visualizing content. I see this as a critical feature.
That's a solid argument.
If we want published content with Gerrit, it means we have to deploy the content to www.eclipse.org, have a whole dedicated site, deliver HTML/CSS.
If we go on GitHub, then content is presented nicely and browseable "for free", we deliver markdown and asciidoc.
GitHub seems to provide us a better "time to market" than Gerrit.

That’s well put. Time to market is key here IMHO.

I work with so many github repos it’s become natural to expect a good README.md file that’s laid out well with all the information I need. I could understand hesitation if that’s not in your daily experience. I at least ask the Gerrit crowd to look around Github to get a good sense of it, especially Gunnar’s repo and see if that changes your mind.

I think it’s also important to understand Github from a UX guidelines perspective as well along with other common environments our IDE users use in their daily lives. We need to make sure Eclipse fits seamlessly into that world.

Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer for Red Hat Developers
My blog - My Tweets