On 2025-03-04 18:19, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
The AGit flow:
- clone the upstream repository
- checkout a new branch
- make a commit
- push the commit as a PR to the forge.
Yes but no.
It's easy, but if we are going to make any contributor do that, we are
still going to need documentation and people will come and complain.
Isn't the email based workflow as simple as:
- clone the upstream repository
- make commits
- send email
I would say that's even simpler (it doesn't even involve branches!). But
still people seem to struggle with it.
Codeberg is born from a software that intends to be a Github clone and
was originally designed with that workflow in mind. So people would
deduce we work using the Github workflow, and probably be frustrated
when they realize we don't.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is discussed as something problematic in
the future.
I'm not saying I dislike it (I do like it), but we have to be prepared.
I don't think the email workflow was specially difficult, I think this
change has been advocated for because people wanted to use the Github
workflow instead (the main argument was "it's what people is used to").
I know Ludovic's proposal doesn't try to overcome that specific "please
do what I'm used to because I don't want to think" problem, but we have
to be aware that those who want this change to happen because of it are
not going to be happy with the result.
Having the PR would be better for them than what we had. That's also true.
Also, now I'm thinking about it, the complexity of a-git-flow is
directly pushed to any contributors, and not only people with commit
access like the website being unable to merge things. So there's that, too.
Cheers,
Ekaitz
