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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #182 received at 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>,
 Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>
Subject: Re: bug#76503: [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to
 Codeberg
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 18:39:56 +0100

Hi,

I agree with most of Maxim’s message.  I add two points.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 at 20:22, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> I see the argument that there's an HTTP API for Forgejo; that's great,
> but it requires that everyone relearn another way of doing something
> that already works well enough for me and others, which I'm not too
> excited about.  I also assume the Forgejo-related tooling, given their
> young age, would not be as mature and missing features in places, and
> that it would require invested time to comfortably do all that can be
> done today in Gnus and Emacs Debbugs, away from the web interface, in
> the environment of choice (Emacs) of perhaps a majority of the Guix
> contributors.

  a) Today, it’s not possible to work offline or by batch.  To my
     knowledge, there is no tool; at least nothing compatible with
     Emacs.

  b) Today, it’s not possible to comment on patches without the
     web-interface, to my knowledge; least nothing compatible with
     Emacs.


( Aside, through my own glasses, it would be a blocker.  But I’ve myopia
  and I know all people do not have the same lenses. ;-) I mean, I agree
  that our workflow reach some limitations and that we need to act now
  for helping the review/merge workload.  Well, I’m adjusting my
  glasses. :-) )


>> Within **30 days** following acceptance of this GCD, committers would
>> migrate all these repositories to https://codeberg.org/guix.
>>
>> For Guix itself, we would decide on a **flag day** 14 days after
>> acceptance of this GCD at the earliest, and 30 days at the latest.  On
>> that day, the official URL of the Guix repository would become
>> https://codeberg.org/guix/guix.git.  A commit would reflect that by
>> updating:
>
> I'd like to suggest extending the 'trial' period to something much
> longer, like a year or so, to make sure our parachute is properly
> installed before jumping the cliff :-).

I agree.  I propose 1. To design the move of the basis of teams in order
to be a bit more incremental [1].  And 2. To help in implementing a
simple one-way bridge [2]: report the open PR inside Debbugs.

Cheers,
simon

1: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Thu, 06 Mar 2025 17:36:29 +0100
id:874j066rqq.fsf <at> gmail.com
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76503
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/874j066rqq.fsf <at> gmail.com
https://yhetil.org/guix/874j066rqq.fsf <at> gmail.com

2: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Thu, 06 Mar 2025 17:35:25 +0100
id:875xkm6rsi.fsf <at> gmail.com
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76503
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/875xkm6rsi.fsf <at> gmail.com
https://yhetil.org/guix/875xkm6rsi.fsf <at> gmail.com

Previous Next

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