me / jonathanmoss.me wrote:
<snip>

>   * Solution: Gitlab is a tool with great documentation and a great
>   API, so learning should be quick. Gitlab is also much more visually
>   appealing (IMO) as compared to Redmine.

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking for anyone else, anywhere.

Fwiw, Redmine also supports git, too.

How well does Gitlab work for users without JavaScript or graphical
interfaces?  As long as I run Ruby without a GUI or JS, I expect to
be able to contribute to it from computers without those things.

Redmine at least mostly works from w3m.

Fwiw, I'd rather not have any bug tracker at all, just a mailing list
like the git project itself.

> * Subversion is centralized, so all source code is in one place
>   * Solution: This makes svn.ruby-lang.org a SPOF (single point of failure). By Git being decentralized, everyone has a copy of all of Ruby's history locally and easily accessible.
> (Sorry I couldn't come up with anymore cons, I only use Git, and have not used Subversion before)

The problem with all GitLab/GitHub/Redmine is they still are centralized
message boards where people may hide their email addresses (maybe
Redmine is better than the other 2, here).  This is a SPOF when the
central server goes down and people cannot communicate.

ruby-lang.org lists are closed to non-subscribers, which is still an
SPOF (but at least we have each other's email addresses in case the list
server goes down).  Email to lists is also replicated nearly
instantaneously to other archives (gmane, probably others).  Honestly
any subscriber has all the data to setup their own archive mirrors
(and I might do this, soon).

A better way would be for ruby-lang.org to allow posting from
non-subscribers and thus encourage everyone to Cc: everyone else.
This mitigates the SPOF component greatly (and is what git and
linux-kernel lists @vger.kernel.org do) to the point which nobody
really notices or cares.

So if we migrate entirely to git, we ought to adopt the workflows
git developers themselves use.