GNU bug report logs - #76503
[GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

Previous Next

Full log

Message #113 received at 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
Cc: 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#76503: [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to
 Codeberg
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 18:19:32 +0100

Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> writes:

> On 2025-03-04 12:22, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>>   - The flow would be*even*  more confusing than now, since 
>>   it'd look
>>     like Github but require committers to use it very 
>>     differently.
>
> This is a very interesting take.
> I have a similar view when we mention A-Git-Flow or whatever 
> that is.
> We would be using a tool in a very surprising way. I don't know 
> if
> that's good, at all.
>
> We would be pushing that complexity only to committers, not to
> ocasional contributors, which may help attracting people. But, 
> on the
> other hand, we would force people who is already very busy (and 
> very
> efficient with their current workflow) to discard their way to 
> do
> things and learn another.

The Github workflow is more complicated:

- fork the repository on the forge website
- clone your fork from the forge to your local machine
- checkout a new branch
- make a commit
- push the commit from your local checkout to your fork on the 
 forge
- go to the forge website to open a pull request from your fork to 
 the upstream repository

The AGit flow:

- clone the upstream repository
- checkout a new branch
- make a commit
- push the commit as a PR to the forge.

Am I overlooking something?

-- 
Ricardo

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.