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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #125 received at 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
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 19:55:57 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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

> 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

Here’s my point of view:
- clone the upstream repository
- make commits
- format patches
- configure git send-mail
- …or find out which addresses to send the mail and who to cc with
etc/teams.scm
- send email

Which is more complicated than the AGit flow IMO.  And we will need
documentation on how to contribute no matter which way we choose.

What I especially like about the AGit flow is that it just uses git,
which is a common factor. No need for an alternate patch format, or
email.

Cheers,
Noé

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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