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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #317 received at 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>,
 Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247 <at> gmail.com>
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:49:00 +0100

Am 07.03.25 um 16:37 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus:
> We have had non-trivial patches with a number of revisions on the
> guix-science channel.
>
> Examples:
>
> https://codeberg.org/guix-science/guix-science/pulls/59
> https://codeberg.org/guix-science/guix-science/pulls/75 

Thanks for sharing. IMHO these are good examples showing that a forge 
can offer a better view on the state of the patches:

Under "commits" one gets a patch-based view, under "files" one gets a 
file-based view — both at the current state of the code. If one is 
interested in differences to the former attempts, they can compare the 
revisions. One can also see which comments have been solved and which 
are still open. This makes it easier to review and to know about the 
current state of the patch than in an email-based workflow.

I'd never do this with a email-based workflow — as this requires to 
create a local branch for every revision of the patch series.

-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |

Previous Next

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