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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #203 received at 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Divya Ranjan <divya <at> subvertising.org>
Cc: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>, Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches
 to Codeberg
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 10:21:48 +0100

Divya Ranjan <divya <at> subvertising.org> writes:

> We have a *humongous* backlog of patches, [...]

> [...] we host a backend service that regularly checks the 
> Codeberg
> repository for any new issues or PRs and then communicates to us
> through the Codeberg’s Forgejo API [0] the content of said 
> issues and
> PRs. The data received from the API then gets directed to our 
> Debbugs
> or Mumi backend, which parses the information from it and opens 
> a new
> Debbugs issue for it. Thus, for every issue opened on Codeberg, 
> we
> have a mirrored Debbugs issue [...]

So at the end we'd have an even larger backlog of patches, and 
spread
across two systems...?  And where do we source the time and 
motivation
to hack on yet another piece of software?  Outside contributions 
to mumi
have been *very* few in all these years; that's not for a lack of
problems we've had with the system, and for once it's not for a 
lack of
review either.

As a long time contributor with commit access I have the 
impression that
people new to Guix hold the assumption that the current system and
workflow works for long time contributors.  I may just be wildly
incompetent, but for me it most assuredly does not work in 
enabling
reviews.  I mostly review patches that were sent to me directly or 
that
happen to solve a problem I'm trying to solve as part of my 
maintainance
work.

The haphazard GNU fork of Debbugs also lacks a number of features, 
has
odd unaddressed bugs, lacks people who even understand in what 
ways it
differs from the Debian version, lacks people working on improving 
it
and addressing these issues.  (There is literally *one* person who 
keeps
the lights on.)

It does not even do simple things like delivering notifications to
*everyone* who participates in an issue discussion.  This is the 
reason
for the sudden eery silence that can be seen in many issues.

I honestly have my doubts that the move to Codeberg would 
automatically
solve all of my workflow issues, but let's please not eulogize the
email-based workflow too much.  It makes sense to me to base our 
efforts
on a system that is *actively* developed by a *team* of aligned 
free
software hackers.

I don't see an active future for the GNU fork of Debbugs, and I 
think it
is not a good use of our time to work on a system that won't 
improve
unless we burden ourselves with even more work (like taking over 
hosting
and administration).  I'd rather work on Guix.

-- 
Ricardo

Previous Next

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