Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > The status quo seems bad, with respect to adequate code review, so > many of us are not interested in preserving it.
The status quo isn't great. However, it's not clear (to me and some others) that this move will be better. It'll lead to improvements in some areas, but there are also drawbacks. Not all the drawbacks seem to have been considered in the GCD. > In my opinion, the recent Guix survey published on the blog supports > the sense that code review is not working fast enough right now. Agreed. However, where there is disagreement is that the move to Codeberg would help with this issue. It could, but it's not clear based on the GCD that it would. The GCD focuses on the potential benefits, without providing sufficient reasoning to conclude that the potential ill-effects wouldn't outweigh the benefits. Notably, the proposal provides very little detail on how the review workflow would differ from the status quo (and the implications therein). >> - 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. No, it isn't important to exhaustively consider _every_ possible alternative to the move to Codeberg, but surely some alternatives that still maintain the benefits of the status quo ought to be considered (if only to conclude them as being infeasible). > Does the question assume that Codeberg would be a bad change, so we > should try anything else first? No. The question simply recognizes that the current proposal seems to be "all in" and that there is insufficient evidence provided to conclude that the move to Codeberg would necessarily be a good change. If it works as expected, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't seem likely we'd be switching back to the status quo - we may switch to yet-another process, perhaps. I.e., once we make the move, it's an effective point of no return. For such moves, it's worth doing some thinking and analysis _prior_ to the change. I believe that this is what the GCD intended to achieve. I am merely pointing out some blind-spots in the presented analysis. -- Suhail
