Felix Lechner via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <guix-devel@gnu.org> writes:
> summary of this thread: Let's ignore all the issues Guix has and > switch to a new hosting platform, then everything will be better! A part of me fears that that is indeed what's happening. Another part is hopeful that some of the constructive criticism that has been raised regarding the proposal will be addressed in an upcoming version. Specifically, switching hosting platforms isn't a panacea. It is a decision that comes with tradeoffs, some of which differ from the status quo. This by itself is neither good nor bad. However, I don't believe that the current proposal has considered _all_ material factors (though it has considered some). Some questions that I am hopeful a future revision will address: - How would the review workflow look like, and a summary of how it will differ from the current replying-to-emails process? - What's the mitigation strategy to address the possibility that this may result in loss of reviewers? If no such mitigation strategy is intended and this is an accepted cost, then a comment clarifying that position is, IMO, warranted. - Does the move to codeberg _necessarily_ have to come with the suspension of accepting email-based patch submissions? Alternatively, could the benefits purported by the move to codeberg not be achieved in _any_ other way? These are important considerations that, IMO, the proposal ought to clarify. -- Suhail
