Hi, On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 at 22:54, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> This contradicts GCD 001 no? The 001 requires the GCD to be sent as >> patch to guix-patc...@gnu.org. How will this be handled? > > I think we would amend GCD 001 to change references to the email > workflow with references to the Codeberg-based workflow. We should > probably spell it out here in an extra bullet, along these lines: > > - Once the guix-consensus-document.git repository has been moved to > Codeberg, authorized people will apply [the > patch](https://issues.guix.gnu.org/XXX) amending GCD 001 to refer to > the Codeberg-based workflow. > > And so we’d send the patch in question beforehand so everyone can see > how the GCD is amended. I think we need a GCD for amending the GCDs. As discussed here [1] or here [2]. Somehow, I would prefer to formally define a process for amending GCD because we have 2 situations and it will happen again. IMHO, we need a light process and bound the meaning of “amend”. I’m delaying a bit this GCD about Amending because we already have 3 open GCD and the volume to process is already high enough. I would prefer avoiding to scatter our attention on another (minor) topic when we already have at least one very deep GCD (about our “workflow”). Therefore, let open this GCD about Amending the 3 open GCDs are in a advanced state. WDYT? Cheers, simon 1: Re: GCDs on info-guix? Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:55:44 +0100 id:87eczpylov....@gmail.com https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2025-02 https://yhetil.org/guix/87eczpylov....@gmail.com 2: 1: Posting GCD #002? (was Re: Trying out Codeberg) Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0100 id:878qpwzz4o....@gmail.com https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2025-02 https://yhetil.org/guix/878qpwzz4o....@gmail.com
