Hi, On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 at 11:11, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> So, we are not growing our base of committers in proportion to >> contributors, and I think we've lost contributors as a result. > > I believe we want to keep the number of committers relatively small, for > security reasons. Sorry if my understanding is incorrect, but if we do not increase the number of people with specific/dedicated/controlled write access, the move to Codeberg is useless. Provocative on purpose. ;-) Well, one bottleneck among many other frictions is the ratio between the number of patch submissions and the number of committers willing to apply and push them. Because the rate of patch submission is increasing then either a committer apply more patches, either we have more committer. No? Else the queue is ever growing. :-) I do not think that because of fancy forge and/or smoother CI will make that one committer apply more patches, on average. I would be a mistake of judgement, IMHO. Well, I will not bet on that. Maybe I misunderstand CodeBerg compared to Savannah. From my understanding, one motivation with the move to Codeberg is to be able to configure a range of permissions. Savannah is all or nothing; either one has write access to all the Guix repositories, either nada and walou. And I think that Coderberg provides the ability to configure the permissions per branches, maybe per files, etc. That’s not the case? Bah I thought that one motivation for the move to Codeberg is the ease to increase the number of people with specific/controlled write access, e.g., only write access to the dedicated branch of a team. The number of committers for the ’master’ branch would be kept as relatively small. Is it not one of the motivations? Cheers, simon
