Subject: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 18:26:15 +0100

Hello,

Arun Isaac <[email-masked]> skribis:

> The only amendment I would strongly recommend is to require the agit
> workflow in order to mitigate the storage problem/risk.

The problem I see with requiring AGit is that we’d be making a decision
based on what we understand is a potential risk on Codeberg’s side.

I would rather not require use of AGit until Codeberg volunteers ask us
to do so or at least express concern in relation with Guix activity on
Codeberg.  But of course, this could only happen after migration.

WDYT?

Alternatively (or in addition to the above), perhaps I can solicit
feedback from a Codeberg volunteer during this discussion period?

> I do want to. But I didn't because I didn't want to overload your
> personal repo with too many pull requests. Perhaps we can have a pilot
> period (say 30 days) when both mumi/debbugs patches and codeberg pull
> requests would be accepted methods to contribute. This may help put
> people's minds at ease about the transition, and give them some time to
> adapt their contribution/review worklows.

Yes, having a period where both methods are accepted sounds doable.

The risk is that some things would go unnoticed on one side or the
other, and during that period we’d be effectively splitting the
community between “those who prefer email” and “those who prefer
Codeberg”, but if it’s limited to 30 days max, that’s probably OK.

What do people think?

Ludo’.