Hi, Suhail Singh <suhailsingh...@gmail.com> skribis:
> The move to codeberg has the potential to alleviate the rate limiting > step (the throughput of committing patches). This has been discussed. > However, said move also has the potential to reduce the throughput of > reviews. It's not clear that the number of Guix contributors who > contribute by participating in the review process won't find the web > interface less convenient. And that this effect won't be greater than > the positive effect of attracting more reviewers. Finally, it's > possible that the reduction in throughput is so great that it offsets > any gains in commit throughput. These are all valid points and we cannot have definite answers. The reason I’m optimistic about the review throughput is informed by my experience with Guix-Science over the last few months. Just like Ricardo wrote, I found it way easier to see where my attention as a reviewer was needed than with our email workflow. It’s also possible to subscribe/unsubscribe from individual issues/pull requests, which helps a lot. To clarify where I’m talking from: I too am the kind of person who’d rather not leave Emacs, especially for a JS-based clicky interface, I have a big reponsibility in our current setup, and I’ve often been skeptical about the “email is hard” argument. In spite of this, I do find that the Codeberg workflow works better for me as a reviewer, even though I’m currently mixing ‘fj.el’ and the dreaded web interface. Ludo’.
