Thanos Apollo <pub...@thanosapollo.org> writes: > Moreover, the current workflow exemplifies a "hacker" ethos, valuing > custom tools and minimizing third-party dependencies.
I'd just like to note that (the GNU instance of) Debbugs is a third party dependency, and it is inflexible enough that mumi cannot effectively work around all its defects or annoyances. Both (this fork of) Debbugs and Savannah---while operated by dedicated volunteers---are not in active development, as far as I know. Extending them for our puproses is not a realistic option. > Switching to a new system might render the efforts put into tools like > mumi and the wealth of information on issues.guix.gnu.org and mailing > lists less relevant or accessible to newcomers. As the original author of mumi, I don't worry too much about lost *efforts*. Mumi was an improvement *at the time*, and in the historical context it remains useful. It still serves us today (thanks primarily to the work put in by Arun), but it is abundantly clear that it does not serve us *well enough* to rely on it for the next decade. I don't see why moving away from debbugs/mumi/issues.guix.gnu.org would mean that previously accumulated information would be less accessible. We would likely still work on backlog in debbugs for months to come. Closing new submissions to the old system does not mean that the archive would be trashed. guix-devel also won't disappear. > Perhaps enhancing the > existing tooling could be a more effective strategy than moving to > third-party solutions. Many people have suggested this (some even demanded it) over the past years, but very few people have actually successfully contributed to the tooling for bug tracking and facilitating reviews. Christopher Baines and Arun Isaac have been the most prolific in that area, and I'm very interested in their comments on this GCD. -- Ricardo
