On 2025-06-21, Ashish SHUKLA wrote: > El 2025-06-21 11:47, Andreas Enge escribió: > My guess is because the merge happened locally (on their computers, > because of signing requirement), they need to push to delete the > upstream branch too, e.g. > > git push origin :librecast-0.11.2
Or the merge did not yet happen, in the specific example you cite... > Another problem with > leaving these artifacts at upstream is that when others do 'git fetch > origin', they'll also end up cloning those branches, and they'll live on > the others' local repositories until they decide to 'git remote prune'. That is a downside, sure... > I think AGit workflow, or users' clones solves this problem better. I like the AGit workflow well enough, but it is not for everybody, and I am not sure we should require it... In particular, using the regular pull request I was pleasantly surprised that it automatically included a template of checklists for the merge (including checkboxes to test if it breaks "guix pull" and checking reverse dependents), which while I am sure you can probably include templates with AGit, I doubt you can make that happen out-of-the-box without the user having to specify it or configure it in some way. The problem with clones into each user's account is that codeberg is about to implement a quota system, and the guix repository would be butting right up against those quotas. While codeberg folks are willing to make exceptions, having to make an exception for nearly each and every person who wants to make pull requests in the "conventional" way against guix seems a bit burdensome on codeberg and each individual potential contributor. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
