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

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:37:02 +0200

Hi,

Am Montag, dem 14.04.2025 um 12:22 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Hello Guix!
> 
> We have just 9 days left to discuss and improve this GCD.
> 
> Please do read the document in its current form:
> 
>  
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-consensus-documents.git/tree/002-codeberg.md
> 
> If you brought up ideas or concerns, or if you spot anything fishy,
> please consider submitting a patch.
I haven't been following the discussion (it's 130 mails, phew!), so I'm
a bit out of the loop and my concerns may have already been raised and
discussed.  I will probably still support or at least accept the GCD
anyway, but two things stand out:

In "Detailed Design > User Interfaces", we do talk about dedicated
Forgejo clients and nice pull request tricks, but an important user
interface I think is missing is a (preferably unauthenticated, but
moderated) way of discussing patches/merge requests.  Reading until the
end of the document, this appears to be acknowledged as an open issue,
"a step back compared to the email-based workflow" – but let's put
aside the need for authentication and focus on tools.  We give fj.el as
one tool that can accomplish this (though online and not offline like
email), but it seems we don't have any other; or rather that they are
only useful for Codeberg/Forgejo and nothing else.  Is there any more
generic tool (besides a browser, I guess) that one can incidentally use
to also look at discussions on Codeberg?

"Detailed Design > Repository Migration Path" quite notably does not
talk about how long the Savannah repo will stay up.  We already
discussed in the the branch naming GCD that people don't always update
their Guix daemons all that regularly and could thus end up seeing an
error if the repo is gone out of nowhere.  Should we possibly make
stronger guarantees both here and the branch naming GCD?

Cheers