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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org>
Cc: 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:46:45 +0100

Hi Ludo,

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 at 22:22, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org> skribis:
>
>> From my personal experiences with Debian, it looks to me possible to do
>> both systems for a long time, but the extent of the downsides are
>> unclear to me.

That’s my proposal: having more milestones for the Migration Paths.

> I’d say that the main downsides of having two systems, for
> new/occasional contributors would be confusion (where am I supposed to
> report issues/propose changes?) and extra work (having to search in both
> places).
>
> For regular contributors, it’s extra work of checking two systems,
> missing out if you choose to use check only one.
>
> For the community, fragmentation, information loss (due to having to
> manually check if a topic is discussed in the other system), extra
> friction due to difficulties to refer to entries across systems.

Somehow, I’m a bit confused.  One argument is to say: Codeberg has a
nice API. Cool!  Therefore, on one hand, people™ can adapt their own
tools in order to exploit it.  However, on the other hand, people™
cannot exploit it to teach Mumi and/or etc/teams.scm.

Well, I do not see any drawbacks if we are crystal clear that Codeberg
and PR will be the main entry-point and the reference.

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

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