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

From: Ekaitz Zarraga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:34:03 +0100

On 2025-03-04 18:19, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> 
> The AGit flow:
> 
> - clone the upstream repository
> - checkout a new branch
> - make a commit
> - push the commit as a PR to the forge.

Yes but no.
It's easy, but if we are going to make any contributor do that, we are 
still going to need documentation and people will come and complain.

Isn't the email based workflow as simple as:

- clone the upstream repository
- make commits
- send email

I would say that's even simpler (it doesn't even involve branches!). But 
still people seem to struggle with it.

Codeberg is born from a software that intends to be a Github clone and 
was originally designed with that workflow in mind. So people would 
deduce we work using the Github workflow, and probably be frustrated 
when they realize we don't.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is discussed as something problematic in 
the future.

I'm not saying I dislike it (I do like it), but we have to be prepared. 
I don't think the email workflow was specially difficult, I think this 
change has been advocated for because people wanted to use the Github 
workflow instead (the main argument was "it's what people is used to").

I know Ludovic's proposal doesn't try to overcome that specific "please 
do what I'm used to because I don't want to think" problem, but we have 
to be aware that those who want this change to happen because of it are 
not going to be happy with the result.

Having the PR would be better for them than what we had. That's also true.

Also, now I'm thinking about it, the complexity of a-git-flow is 
directly pushed to any contributors, and not only people with commit 
access like the website being unable to merge things. So there's that, too.

Cheers,
Ekaitz