Hi Ludo, On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 at 22:22, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> skribis: > >> From my personal experiences with Debian, it looks to me possible to do >> both systems for a long time, but the extent of the downsides are >> unclear to me.
That’s my proposal: having more milestones for the Migration Paths. > I’d say that the main downsides of having two systems, for > new/occasional contributors would be confusion (where am I supposed to > report issues/propose changes?) and extra work (having to search in both > places). > > For regular contributors, it’s extra work of checking two systems, > missing out if you choose to use check only one. > > For the community, fragmentation, information loss (due to having to > manually check if a topic is discussed in the other system), extra > friction due to difficulties to refer to entries across systems. Somehow, I’m a bit confused. One argument is to say: Codeberg has a nice API. Cool! Therefore, on one hand, people™ can adapt their own tools in order to exploit it. However, on the other hand, people™ cannot exploit it to teach Mumi and/or etc/teams.scm. Well, I do not see any drawbacks if we are crystal clear that Codeberg and PR will be the main entry-point and the reference. Cheers, simon
