Hello, Am Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 04:26:54PM -0700 schrieb Vagrant Cascadian: > In the case of librecast-0.11.2, I intentionally pushed it in order to > submit the corresponding (as yet unmerged) pull request:
okay, good to hear the branches were pushed intentionally. > Pushing to a branch and making a pull request from a branch is a > commonly used workflow, and it was my understanding that using > conventional workflows was considered part of the advantage of switching > to codeberg. In my opinion, pushing branches to the main repository ends up polluting the namespace (well, I also do it from time to time, so I cannot actually blame anybody...). I would rather reserve their use to teams, or more general collectives working on a common goal. > I think we are still in an exploratory phase with switching to codeberg, > so if using a different branch naming convention or something would > help Alternatively we could use a naming convention such as wip-ae-..., where "ae" are the initials of the person who started the branch. At least it would be immediately visible that these are supposed to be short-lived branches. And the "wip-" prefix is used by QA to ignore branches that are exploratory. Then we would also need a convention that such a branch could be deleted without further warning x days after it was last pushed to; otherwise it would become annoying to try to contact the branch creators, decide what to do when they do not react, and so on. Indeed we are still exploring, so I agree we should continue discussing how to organise our space. Andreas
