On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 10:50:00AM -0500, Suhail Singh wrote: > - How would the review workflow look like, and a summary of how it will > differ from the current replying-to-emails process?
Good question, personally I don't know. I have used Gitlab and Github, so I figure it would be something like that. > - 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. I think we can be sure that we will lose some people if we make this change. But I would hope that we gain more. Of course the supporters of the proposal feel that way. The status quo seems bad, with respect to adequate code review, so many of us are not interested in preserving it. In my opinion, the recent Guix survey published on the blog supports the sense that code review is not working fast enough right now. > - 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? Also, I don't know if there is a way to email patches to Codeberg. The second part of your question, is it important to exhaustively consider every possible option? It's somewhat extraordinary to ask for that. Does the question assume that Codeberg would be a bad change, so we should try anything else first?
