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

From: Arun Isaac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 00:12:23 +0000

Hi 45mg,

> And then, there are the additional features provided by a forge, which
> are very difficult to provide in an email-based workflow. For example,
> tagging issues.

The mumi CLI can now tag issues[1], but I take your point that it is
never going to be as easy as a web interface.

[1]: https://yhetil.org/guix/[email-masked]/

> Also, more reliable and integrated QA would probably make a big
> difference, since QA seems to be how committers find out whether a
> series is ready to apply. While qa.guix.gnu.org is very impressive for a
> volunteer effort, it suffers from a lot of issues that don't really
> happen in modern forges (eg. failing to detect or apply patches from a
> Debbugs submission), and we don't seem to have enough bandwidth to
> improve it. A forge would provide most of what it does, and it would be
> directly integrated with the rest of the tooling.

I believe we will still be using most of our QA system with Codeberg.
Codeberg will simply trigger our QA system in some way. The Codeberg CI
will likely not have sufficient compute power to do what our QA system
does.

Also, I don't think the problem with the QA system is that it cannot
detect our patches. For some reason, it stopped working at some point.
Chris Baines should know the details. I am not very familiar with it.

> Could you share what aspects of Debian's organizational structure you'd
> like us to mirror? I agree that decentralization is good in principle,
> but I'm concerned about needlessly fragmenting the community. I'm not
> familiar with how things work in Debian-land. If they've managed to
> solve this problem, it'd be good for all of us to know about.

I am not too clear about Debian's organizational structure either. I was
hoping channels can do for us what Debian's teams do for Debian.

Regards,
Arun