|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:
That's a solid argument.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.
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.
Thatâs well put. Time to market is key here IMHO.
I work with so many github repos itâs become natural to expect a good README.md file thatâs laid out well with all the information I need. I could understand hesitation if thatâs not in your daily experience. I at least ask the Gerrit crowd to look around Github to get a good sense of it, especially Gunnarâs repo and see if that changes your mind.
I think itâs 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.
ui-best-practices-working-group mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit