How to deploy our new jekyll website

Imre Farkas ifarkas at redhat.com
Mon Oct 1 14:03:03 UTC 2012


On 09/26/2012 07:23 PM, Hugh Brock wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:19:14AM -0500, Steve Linabery wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:38:04AM -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2012 08:44 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what to use for the subdomain name. I don't love "issues"
>>>>> because it sounds negative, like it's just for bugs. (Despite GitHub
>>>>> using the "Issues" name.) I like "redmine" a little better, but if we
>>>>> upgraded to ChiliProject or something, the name would be really
>>>>> confusing. Maybe planning.aeolusproject.org or something? But please
>>>>> don't let me derail this conversation into naming!
>>>> planning.aeolusproject.org works for me too.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone have objections to that?
>>>>
>>>> Regards and best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Justin Clift
>>>>
>>>
>>> tracker.aeolusproject.org ?
>>>
>>>    -Mo
>>
>> Ah nothing like a spirited naming discussion.
>>
>> issues -> doesn't have a negative connotation to me (better than 'bugs'!), and even so, who cares? However seems to me we're doing more than tracking issues.
>>
>> planning -> seems to me to be the best description of what we're doing with this tool
>>
>> tracker -> adequate but I prefer planning.
>
> I have a radical suggestion I would like to throw out for comment:
>
> I was talking to Matt Hicks the other day, of OpenShift, and he claims
> they are moving *their entire agile setup* to GitHub. Basically they're
> going to ditch stories in Rally and move them to the GitHub issue
> tracker instead.
>
> Now, I'm the first to admit that the GitHub issue tracker isn't the
> greatest tool ever to come down the pike, but you have to love the
> integration with the rest of the GitHub services and so on.
>
> So, rather than go through a whole dance with Redmine and the wiki and
> the website and GitHub Pages and so on, would it be worth considering
> just moving the whole shooting match to GitHub? If it's good enough for
> OpenShift, I'd think it would be good enough for us.
>
> (For the record, OpenShift has a rather nice "only the bot can merge
> pull requests after it makes sure all the tests pass" setup that keeps a
> tight lid on accidental merges. I think we would need something like
> this too.)
>
> Let me know what you think,
> --Hugh
>

I am all in to reduce the number of tools necessary to manage our 
workflow. Even if it's not better than the existing one, I agree, it's 
good enough to replace Redmine entirely.

So +1

Imre




More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list