Re: Preparing for Git repository migration

Hi Ludo, > I’m also happy to add your account to the “owners” team; let me know > when you have one. I already have an account. Here it is: https://codeberg.org/arunisaac Thanks, Arun

Re: Preparing for Git repository migration

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello, > > Efraim Flashner writes: > >> Can we also ask the Savannah admins to change the cgit clone URIs for >> the repos that have been moved over? > > Is it feasible? I would think that Cgit has those hardcoded, no? Looking at cgitrc(5), I think it should be possib

Re: Committers: create and share your Codeberg account

Hi, Am 09.05.25 um 11:37 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: Hello Guix! If you’re a committer, please consider creating an account on Codeberg. To avoid problems, I suggest you send your account name as a public reply to this message, in a signed message. This is my codeberg account: https://codeberg.

Re: Resource usage on Codeberg

On 2025-05-13 17:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote: For the record, I reached out to Codeberg e.V. regarding storage and bandwidth usage induced by Guix, to which they replied that they “expect this to be fine”: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-e.V./requests/issues/784 Ludo’. Oh! This is great! Than

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:50 AM Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > On 2025-05-13, Greg Hogan wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:32 AM pinoaffe wrote: > >> > >> If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance > >> acceptable, they should probably "vote" accept, even if their

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

Greg Hogan writes: > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:32 AM pinoaffe wrote: >> If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance >> acceptable, they should probably "vote" accept, even if their preference >> is quite strong > This preference is indicated by not voting. If 75% of t

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

Hi, On 2025-05-12 15:33, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Steve George writes: Note that 'Deliberate' means to "consider or discuss", and a person would "vote" at the end of a deliberation period to "to express your choice or opinion". That is the standard use in English. One doesn't keep a "Deliberat

Re: [PATCH 00/48] Extend bag-build to gexps.

Hello Nicolas, Nicolas Graves writes: > The first/independent part of 68315 has already been merged, now it's > time for discussion on how/when/with which process to get that one > merged. > > I've pinged the other issue this morning, hopefully we can get a > discussion going there! That's great

Re: Deliberation vs. voting (was: [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg)

On 2025-05-13, Simon Tournier wrote: > On Mon, 12 May 2025 at 09:43, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> To my take on english "deliberation" is usually focused more on the >> process of making a decision, though possibly to make it clear and >> explicit, we could use "deliberation results" or "results of

Re: GCD005: Regular and efficient releases

Hi Greg, thanks for clarifying, this is indeed very helpful. Am Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:03:02AM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan: > There may be some confusion in terms. The GCD states "there are > currently over 30,000 packages in the archive" and "Guix would still > make all packages and services part

Resource usage on Codeberg

For the record, I reached out to Codeberg e.V. regarding storage and bandwidth usage induced by Guix, to which they replied that they “expect this to be fine”: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-e.V./requests/issues/784 Ludo’.

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

On 2025-05-13, Greg Hogan wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:32 AM pinoaffe wrote: >> >> If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance >> acceptable, they should probably "vote" accept, even if their preference >> is quite strong > > This preference is indicated by not v

Re: GCD005: Regular and efficient releases

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:11 AM Andreas Enge wrote: > > Hello Greg, > > I am having some trouble following your argumentation; in the beginning > of your different postings I got the impression that you did not see > a need for releases, since one could always do a "guix pull". But then > you end

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

Hi Steve, Steve George skribis: > Reflecting things that we agree on: I will try and avoid the word 'vote'. > I'll rename to 'deliberation-record' (1). And, will use 'Deliberation record' > elsehwere. Sounds great to me. > Things we don't agree on: I don't see a way to avoid the verb "vote"

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:32 AM pinoaffe wrote: > > If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance > acceptable, they should probably "vote" accept, even if their preference > is quite strong This preference is indicated by not voting. If 75% of team members "vote" this

Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

(I previously sent this mail to steve alone, am resending it now with the mailing list et al in CC) Steve George writes: > Reflecting things that we agree on: I will try and avoid the word > 'vote'. I'll rename to 'deliberation-record' (1). And, will use > 'Deliberation record' elsehwere. >

Re: GCD005: Regular and efficient releases

Hello Greg, I am having some trouble following your argumentation; in the beginning of your different postings I got the impression that you did not see a need for releases, since one could always do a "guix pull". But then you end with: Am Mon, May 12, 2025 at 01:11:15PM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan

Re: GCD005: Regular and efficient releases

Hello Ekaitz, Am Sat, May 10, 2025 at 01:04:18PM +0200 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga: > So, now, realistically speaking, we are not ready for total automation and > we should make a release process. That I agree with, and we could use the > process to try to slowly make the process lighter until it barel

Re: Preparing for Git repository migration

Hello, Arun Isaac writes: >> Looking at , there’s one >> repository I forgot to mention (shame on me): mumi. >> >> Arun, should I let you migrate it? Let me know what you prefer. > > Since you're already familiar with the process, it might be easier for

Re: Committers: create and share your Codeberg account

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello, My codeberg account is https://codeberg.org/snape. Thanks! Clément -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQJJBAEBCAAzFiEE9JRy9HpZANXCNfISifltSAjzWccFAmgjK6oVHGNsZW1lbnRA bGFzc2lldXIub3JnAAoJEIn5bUgI81nH/q8P/R1/M72qp/4EATpiDaSodH9OMsla Flp8R5Qx7Z8mb

Re: Preparing for Git repository migration

Hello, Efraim Flashner writes: > Can we also ask the Savannah admins to change the cgit clone URIs for > the repos that have been moved over? Is it feasible? I would think that Cgit has those hardcoded, no? Ludo’.

Re: [PATCH 00/48] Extend bag-build to gexps.

Sorry Sergio I read you late! Nice, indeed debugging symbols would be great in this context. The first/independent part of 68315 has already been merged, now it's time for discussion on how/when/with which process to get that one merged. I've pinged the other issue this morning, hopefully we c

Re: Setting procedure properties for build-system builders

Ping ;) Next steps here? I can resubmit a clean 68315 with this change too if this helps. In the previous mail response, I made the point that 68315 is probably a requirement for the following patch to be actually useful. Cheers, Nicolas On 2025-04-26 01:12, Nicolas Graves wrote: > attache

Re: Delibaration vs. voting (was: [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg)

Hi, On Mon, 12 May 2025 at 09:43, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > To my take on english "deliberation" is usually focused more on the > process of making a decision, though possibly to make it clear and > explicit, we could use "deliberation results" or "results of the > deliberation" ? In French, t