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

From: Arun Isaac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 00:05:32 +0000

Hi Ludo,

> You say “not fundamentally opposed”, but I’d like to stress that the
> process is not about agreeing/disagreeing on an immutable proposal; it’s
> about building it together to into account our concerns and needs.

Indeed, my bad. Sorry.

The only amendment I would strongly recommend is to require the agit
workflow in order to mitigate the storage problem/risk. This may require
changes to Forgejo. I say this without ever having used the agit
workflow. So others who know better should say so if this is a bad idea.

> (BTW, you should give Codeberg a try, as I mentioned in the cover
> letter.  It would ensure we’re all on the same page.)

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.

Finally, I understand that the move to Codeberg is a tough decision, and
I wish to express my appreciation for the leadership you are providing
the project.

Thank you,
Arun