let's try to get a consensus on a few decisions.
Let's take this opportunity to migrate:
- code hosting (currently hg/bitbucket),
- bug tracker (currently bugzilla/self-hosted),
- pull/merge requests (currently bitbucket),
- code review (currently a mix of bugzilla/bitbucket),
- continuous integration (currently a mix of cron job, gitlab runners, etc. without ability to test PR)
to a *single* and *stable* "tool" hosted and maintained by a reliable third-party.
Here "tool" is either github or gitlab, and thus we also have to switch from hg to git.
-> Do we agree on this proposition?
If YES, then all it remains to do is to choose between github or gitlab (and then hack some migration scripts!).
github main pro:
- most users/contributors already have an account
gitlab main pros:
- more freedom/independence
- gitlab CI rocks:
- this make it a real all-in-one solution
- thanks to gitlab-runners anybody can easily share computing resources. I can myself dedicate two very powerful machines without VM overhead compiling Eigen's unit tests within a few minutes. That's a key feature if we want to automatically test PRs.
- part of the work is already done (e.g., gitlab-runners, bugzilla to gitlab)
gitlab main cons:
- the search engine for issues does not search within the comments yet. This is a very serious limitation, hopefully it'll be resolved soon, but the current patch proposal is exhibiting very serious performance issues with no clear solution: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/24458
Bug's ID are preserved, and it's only missing hash/link conversions from hg/bitbucket to whatever we switch for code hosting.
The migration script should not be too difficult to adapt to github if github ends up as the winner.
If we go with gitlab, then we have the choice of the gitlab instance, e.g..: