Hello Ian, Am Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 08:33:14AM -0800 schrieb Ian Eure: > - The QA status on issues.guix.gnu.org is not very useful. By far the most > common thing to see here is "QA: Unknown," with no indication of why it’s > unknown or when it may become known[1]. Sometimes this is infrastructure > failures; other times, QA is overloaded. Both present the same way. The > important information this should provide is, in large part, absent. In > turn, that makes it much harder for contributors -- particularly > non-committers -- to ascertain if a given patch is problematic or not.
my understanding is that moving to Codeberg would not automatically enable QA, but that we would still need to connect our own QA to the forge CI system. So this issue is essentially independent of where we host our sources - if any, the need for additional development could slow things down (but maybe the end result would be a simpler system, I do not know). > - The depth of patch review is inconsistent depending on the reviewer, > which I believe is due to lacking a consistent process for doing so. > Forge-style CI would improve this: it could report whether a package passes > `guix lint', whether it triggers a large number of rebuilds, etc. The > consistent application of these standards will, I believe, both ease burden > on committers (you don’t have to remember to check these things) and raise > the consistency of these policies getting applied. I think the main problem will remain the availability of reviewers, which again is independent of where the issues are hosted. But indeed, having a form where reviewers can check what they have done might make things easier. Andreas
