Hi,
thanks for the updated GCD. I'm in favor of it.
Anyhow, some remarks:
1) Regarding the AGit workflow discussed: This looks interesting
(haven't tried yet). I suggest adding a section to the GCD that this
will be documented within 30 days following acceptance of this GCD (or
even earlier). Beside this, I'm curious whether this would be possible
without "contributor" permissions – so everybody can submit patches this
way.
2) Regarding the issue tracker: I support not migrating issues. Anyhow,
i have two concerns, which OTHO can eventually be targeted in another
GCD or two:
* We might want to migrate the patches, so they don't get lost. It would
be interesting whether we could automatically extract the latest patch
set and create a pull-request for it, including any cover letter
(amended with a link to the original issue). WDYT?
* Some "basic" issues are open since long and still need to be addressed
- or be closed. If we start using the Codeberg tracker, chances are high
issues.guix.gnu.org (and debbugs) will go out of sight and these issues
will get lost. Again this can be decided later on. Maybe many old issues
could be closed anyway.
3) Regarding workflow and tagging of issues/patches: It might be worth
giving some guidance how to tag issues in case. E.g. tagging as "won't
fix", "invalid". etc. Again, this can be discussed after migration as
this is unrelated to the actual migration. OTOH, if there already is
some practice on this, you could add it to the GCD already.
--
Regards
Hartmut Goebel
| Hartmut Goebel | h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |
