Divya Ranjan <di...@subvertising.org> writes: > Only 9% of contributors feel like the addition of a PR-based workflow > ála Github/Codeberg/Gitlab would lead to them contributing further but > while 203 respondents (a total of 20%) report that it’s the timely > reviews and actions on contributions that inhibit motivation for > further contribution. [...] > What I do think could lead to better contributions is what’s reported > in the survey before the workflow change, i.e, timely reviews, [...]
In the short time that we've used Codeberg for guix-science I've found it much easier to see at a glance what patches await my review and what their current status is. This directly improved my ability to review and merge patches. I'm no stranger to debbugs and had previously built mumi (which powers issues.guix.gnu.org); we never managed to reach the same level of convenience. People send patches without X-Debbugs-Cc-ing the associated team and so patches wait for a review for months. Or they *do* Cc the team, but the email drowns in all the other Guix emails and I have no way of listing all patches affecting my field of responsibility, etc. Search on mumi has always been a little wonky, and my very limited time was better used to maintain the ever-growing package collection than working on improving mumi, which was never been very enthusiastically received by the community and which inherits all the problems and limitations of debbugs. A year ago (or longer?) I decided to only resume contributions to mumi if the community overwhelmingly commits to supporting it. Aside from the very good sustained work by Arun this has not happened. I think we've accepted this dysfunctional state for long enough to state with confidence that there isn't enough collective will, time, and energy to improve our custom systems to support a more streamlined review process. These are not independent topics. I do expect that migrating to Codeberg will improve review throughput. -- Ricardo
