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 If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance 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 If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance 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: 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: [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 If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance 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: [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 If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance 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: 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

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

On 12 May, Ludovic Courtès wrote: (...) > This will be consistent with the terminology used in GCD 001 and also > dispel the impression that it all boils down to a vote: there is no vote > (and no campaign, no representatives, nothing like that), and I’d prefer > everyone in the community to focus

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

On 2025-05-12, 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 "Deliberati

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

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 05:33:47PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Oh, I perhaps mistakenly assumed “deliberation” was the same as French > “délibération”, “decision taken by a governing body”: > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/d%C3%A9lib%C3%A9ration -- délibération f (plural délibérations

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

Hi, 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 "Deliberation" as a record of choices (e.g. tally

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

On 12 May, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > I think it would make sense to add it in a sub-directory of > > guix-consensus-documents.git, and IMO does not require a change of > > GCD 001 (though we could eventually propose to amend GCD 001 to > > explicitly me

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

Hi Steve, Ludovic Courtès writes: > I think it would make sense to add it in a sub-directory of > guix-consensus-documents.git, and IMO does not require a change of > GCD 001 (though we could eventually propose to amend GCD 001 to > explicitly mention said sub-directory). I saw that you did tha

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

Hello, Steve George writes: > I collated the results of the voting on GCD 002. [...] > Voting result: > - 67% (33 votes) voted to pass the GCD > - 0% disapproved > - 33% abstained by not voting > > As more than 25% of members voted to pass, and there were no disapprovals > this GCD is

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

Hi Jason, Jason Conroy writes: > The gitea and forgejo client CLIs have an option called "dump-repo"[1] > which appears relevant. The call requires a hostname and user creds, > so > I don't think it's specifically a server-side tool. Unfortunately, it > tends to hammer the backend service with l

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

Ludovic Courtès writes: We could also set up our own thing; I’ll inquire to see if there are tools to do that for regular users. This is what I have in mind. Please note I’m not considering this as blocking or something we must have on Day-1. I did inquire on Mastodon: nobody came up wi

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

Re, On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 14:09, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I adapted a slightly modified variant of this (using ‘jq’ for parsing) > with slightly modified text. LGTM. Thanks. Re-reading all, the sections « User Interfaces » and « Continuous Integration » capture well all the potential of the

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

Hello, Simon Tournier writes: > Ah, I forgot: I would remove the mention to your usual login civodul and > instead use classical aubrey or blake or carol or dana or … :-) Good point. > All in all, I propose this: I adapted a slightly modified variant of this (using ‘jq’ for parsing) with slig

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

Hi, On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 08:30, pinoaffe wrote: > I'll probably set it up somewhere, either just as a repo of my own or at > https://github.com/mobid/gitea-forge Cool! Thank you for this work, very helpful! Once this somewhere is defined, IMHO, the best seems to drop it as a comment in

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

Hi Ludo, Ah, I forgot: I would remove the mention to your usual login civodul and instead use classical aubrey or blake or carol or dana or … :-) On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 21:48, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Last, it appears to me a good idea to also provide the tip for removing >> closed pull reques

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

ot have a setup that fulfills them. Last but not least, I support the outcome of this GCD. I know it’s not yet the Deliberation Period and this will not be taken into account. But I will be offline for some weeks and it appears to me worth to express my plain support. Cheers, simon 1: [bug

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

Hi, Simon Tournier writes: > Bah news from upstream: > https://github.com/magit/forge/pull/770#issuecomment-2812213785 yup, kinda expected that tbh, and fair, since forge has a lot of callback related technical debt and since tarsius is quite hesitant to merge PRs > Feel free to share the se

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

Hello, Simon Tournier writes: > I think it is misleading. Because this does not really « pull > references of pending PRs » but retrieve « all the PRs ». Therefore, > then one needs to manually find their way. > > Well, although I’m sure Git scripts are around, it appears to me a good > opport

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

Hi, On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 19:53, pinoaffe wrote: > https://github.com/magit/ghub/pull/171 and > https://github.com/magit/forge/pull/770 Bah news from upstream: https://github.com/magit/forge/pull/770#issuecomment-2812213785 Feel free to share the separate repository, if you do. Cheers,

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

Ludovic Courtès writes: This looks like a great idea to me! In light of guix potentially moving to codeberg, i've began adding forgejo support to magit/forge, see https://github.com/magit/ghub/pull/171 and https://github.com/magit/forge/pull/770 It's still a WIP, so testers (and patches) welco

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

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello Guix! > > We have just 9 days left to discuss and improve this GCD. > > Please do read the document in its current form: > > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-consensus-documents.git/tree/002-codeberg.md > > If you brought up ideas or concerns, or if

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

Hi Ludo, Thanks for the recall. I thinks it is worth having a later and careful reading on the proposal before the end of this period, considering its relevance. A few remarks (disclaimer: low profile contributor, here). First and most important, to me what really matters here is making

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

Hi Cayetano, Cayetano Santos writes: > I noticed that the service I personally use the most, yhetil.org > (public-inbox instance) for navigating issues, bugs, patches and mail > lists, is not even mentioned in the GCD. I don’t use it personally, but if you think of a place where it can be

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

Ludovic Courtès writes: > We have just 9 days left to discuss and improve this GCD. > > Please do read the document in its current form: > > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-consensus-documents.git/tree/002-codeberg.md In other news, for the Emacs users among us: there’s been a n

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

Hello Guix! We have just 9 days left to discuss and improve this GCD. Please do read the document in its current form: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-consensus-documents.git/tree/002-codeberg.md If you brought up ideas or concerns, or if you spot anything fishy, please consider

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

Hello, Simon Tournier skribis: > Currently, the name of specifications reads [1]: > > forgejo-pull-requests-guix-science-carputils-91 > forgejo-pull-requests-guix-science-equinox-cherrypick-84 > forgejo-pull-requests-guix-science-ghdl-87 > forgejo-pull-requests-guix-science-maste

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

Simon Tournier writes: > For instance, magit-forge does not work with Codeberg although their > documentation says so. Well, neither Ludo or I have succeeded in > configuring it, although we asked advice on Mastodon [1,2]. magit-forge has practically no support for forgejo yet, it only knows h

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

Hi, Simon Tournier skribis: > I’m just discovering the Forgejo instance of sourceware: > > https://forge.sourceware.org/explore/organizations > > Here, mirror of GCC, Glibc and others are already hosted. > > Therefore, it would make sense to check their willing and capacity to > backup Guix;

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

Hi Simon, Simon Tournier skribis: >>> 1. Drop the section of « Issue Tracker Migration Path ». >> >> To be clear, are you suggesting to not use Codeberg for bug reports at >> all? > > To be clear, yes. OK. So postponing bug/issue tracker migration to Jan. 2026 as the GCD now states (based on

Mirroring the mirror? (was Re: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg)

Hi Ludo, I’m just discovering the Forgejo instance of sourceware: https://forge.sourceware.org/explore/organizations Here, mirror of GCC, Glibc and others are already hosted. Therefore, it would make sense to check their willing and capacity to backup Guix; I have in mind to ask for hosting

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

Hi, On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 17:04, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Improving this is among the things that have been on our mind for a > while; it looks better now: > > https://guix.bordeaux.inria.fr/pull-requests > > We’re making progress, at our own pace. :-) Cool! It’s much better. :-) Cheers,

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

Hi Ludo, I have not read yet the updated version… > An incremental move from guix-patches to PRs as you suggest sounds > perfectly reasonable to me > I’ll propose > changes along these lines. …so I will comment elsewhere about how “increm

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

Hello, I pushed the changes below, which I think address some of the concerns that you and others raised: 8d0b5c6 * 002-codeberg: Avoid “modern” in the summary. fe88728 * 002-codeberg: Clarify “Repository Migration Path”. 21f57f0 * 002-codeberg: Change to a more gradual issue tracker migrat

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

Hi, On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 at 16:20, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > ## Continuous Integration [...] > In the Guix repository, we will set up webhooks to trigger the creation > of a new jobset at ci.guix.gnu.org (Cuirass) as soon as migration is > complete. While this has been successfully used for sev

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

Ludovic Courtès writes: c) A discussion allowing write-access for dedicated branches. Opening a PR gives access to a dedicated branch; I suppose that would be the main approach, available to everyone. Getting a dedicated branch on the guix/guix repo wouldn’t be different from now

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

Hi Simon! Simon Tournier skribis: > 1. Drop the section of « Issue Tracker Migration Path ». To be clear, are you suggesting to not use Codeberg for bug reports at all? To me using Codeberg’s bug tracker is an integral part of the proposal (it’s in the title). We could change it to “Migrati

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

simon 1: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg Simon Tournier Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:30:44 +0100 id:87frjl6paj@gmail.com https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76503 https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87frjl6paj@gmail.com https://yhetil.org/guix/87frjl6paj@gmail.com

Git branch rename? (was Re: [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg)

Hi, On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 at 15:08, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 05:13:25PM +0100, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: >> That's why I commented on the Codeberg GCD — so that it can be included >> in a v2 of said GCD. I do expect there will be some revisions before >> the decision is fin

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

Hi Ludo, On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 at 22:22, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian 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 mileston

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

ge.org/swh:1:cnt:ce7a09543926f7e5717b7a3f8fa3c1f6d5fdb5f1 2: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg Simon Tournier Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:30:44 +0100 id:87frjl6paj@gmail.com https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76503 https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87frjl6paj@gma

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

Vagrant Cascadian 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. I’d say that the main downsides of having two systems, for new/occasional contributors would be confusion (whe

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

Hi Vivien, Vivien Kraus skribis: > Le vendredi 14 mars 2025 à 22:45 +0100, Ludovic Courtès a écrit : >> and patch tracking to Codeberg, >>   a “modern” forge hosted by a non-profit. > > I would have written “a web-based forge” or web-firt or web-oriented or > web-facing… here instead of modern w

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

Suhail Singh writes: > Divya Ranjan writes: > >> I had to realize that Linux gets a *lot* more in funding and >> infrastructure than Guix. > > While I agree in general, I don't understand the specific point you were > making. Was it that Linux with its greater funding has someone to > manage so

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

Hello, I have only distantly followed the discussion, but this triggers a reaction from me: Le vendredi 14 mars 2025 à 22:45 +0100, Ludovic Courtès a écrit : > and patch tracking to Codeberg, >   a “modern” forge hosted by a non-profit. I would have written “a web-based forge” or web-firt or web

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

Hi Vagrant, Thanks for sharing your experience, it’s definitely relevant! Vagrant Cascadian skribis: > Is there duplication of issues? Yup. Sometimes one needs to get > forwarded to the other manually. Whee. > > > Do issues get automatically closed on both systems? Usually, if you > remember to

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

On 2025-03-14, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >> Is there duplication of issues? Yup. Sometimes one needs to get >> forwarded to the other manually. Whee. >> >> >> Do issues get automatically closed on both systems? Usually, if you >> remember to include the right incantations

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

Hello Guix! It’s been one month since this GCD was submitted, which means there’s only (only?) one month left! Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion so far, it’s good to have this diversity of viewpoints and experiences. For the remaining time, I think we should focus on finding wh

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

Am 07.03.25 um 17:01 schrieb Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.: There could be. I mated Debbugs with Public Inbox. My system scans Debbugs for changes [1] but does not yet maintain inboxes by bug number. The information is available via the NNTP news pr

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

Am 07.03.25 um 10:21 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: As a long time contributor with commit access I have the impression that people new to Guix hold the assumption that the current system and workflow works for long time contributors.  I may just be wildly incompetent, but for me it most assuredly does

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

Am 07.03.25 um 16:37 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: We have had non-trivial patches with a number of revisions on the guix-science channel. Examples: https://codeberg.org/guix-science/guix-science/pulls/59 https://codeberg.org/guix-science/guix-science/pulls/75 Thanks for sharing. IMHO these are go

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

Hi, Cayetano Santos skribis: > This point might become relevant at some point ahead on time. Do we > have any reference of a successful migration to another gitlab / > forgejo instance ? I’m thinking here about the long term retrieval of > all information we will deposit at codeberg duri

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

On 2025-03-04, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Ludovic Courtès writes: >> Within **30 days** following acceptance of this GCD, committers would >> migrate all these repositories to https://codeberg.org/guix. >> >> For Guix itself, we would decide on a **flag day** 14 days after >> acceptance of this GCD

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

tps://toot.aquilenet.fr/@civodul/113560896535810894 2: https://social.sciences.re/@zimoun/113561826489905430 3: Re: bug#76503: [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg Maxim Cournoyer Tue, 04 Mar 2025 20:22:59 +0900 id:8734ftdoq4@gmail.com https://lists.gnu.org/archive/

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

Hi Andreas, On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 at 17:03, Andreas Enge wrote: > Which says nothing about the experience on a forge, logically. If I might, I encourage you to subscribe to all the guix-science channels. This way, you will have an foretaste: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. :-) Cheers, simon

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

Hello all, Reading a random fediverse thread, I came across some aspects about growth of issues and governance around duplications and feature requests: https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/114131748974841455 ``` What I gather from the replies is that better issue tracking should work w

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

Divya Ranjan via Guix-patches via writes: > I would be open to a consideration of using BugZilla or Gerrit for > that matter, even though I’m not used to them, the possibility of > working with them without a browser, motivates me to learn them. Ignore me if I'm not adding anything to the discus

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

Hi Ludo, Thanks for this, it is remarkable and obvious the amount of time you have spend thinking about it in deep before submitting the GCD. However, after a last read to the proposal, a question arises in my mind. I haven’t found any reference to it in this long thread (maybe I m

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

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 01:49:46PM -0500, Suhail Singh wrote: > While I agree in general, I don't understand the specific point you were > making. Was it that Linux with its greater funding has someone to > manage something like Bugzilla, where Guix may not? Linux contributors and maintainers are

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

Suhail Singh writes: Ludovic Courtès writes: As for experimenting, I agree and I reiterate my invitation to send trivial patches to (or to Guix-Science, Guix-Past, etc.). I think this GCD’s discussion period is the right time to give it a try as it can

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

Divya Ranjan writes: > I had to realize that Linux gets a *lot* more in funding and > infrastructure than Guix. While I agree in general, I don't understand the specific point you were making. Was it that Linux with its greater funding has someone to manage something like Bugzilla, where Guix m

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

Hello Suhail, > "Thompson, David" writes: > >> The email-based workflow worked well enough in the early days, but >> Guix outgrew it 5+ years ago. > > Do you also believe that the Linux kernel has outgrown the "email-based > workflow"? If not, what makes things different for Guix, in your > opin

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

Hello Ricardo, >> We have a *humongous* backlog of patches, [...] > >> [...] we host a backend service that regularly checks the Codeberg >> repository for any new issues or PRs and then communicates to us >> through the Codeberg’s Forgejo API [0] the content of said issues >> and >> PRs. The da

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

"Thompson, David" writes: >> Do you also believe that the Linux kernel has outgrown the "email-based >> workflow"? If not, what makes things different for Guix, in your >> opinion? > > I don't contribute to Linux so I have nothing to add here. I don't believe that that's a necessary pre-requisi

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

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 12:40 PM Suhail Singh wrote: > > "Thompson, David" writes: > > > The email-based workflow worked well enough in the early days, but > > Guix outgrew it 5+ years ago. > > Do you also believe that the Linux kernel has outgrown the "email-based > workflow"? If not, what makes

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

"Thompson, David" writes: > The email-based workflow worked well enough in the early days, but > Guix outgrew it 5+ years ago. Do you also believe that the Linux kernel has outgrown the "email-based workflow"? If not, what makes things different for Guix, in your opinion? Since a number of cri

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

Hello, On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 10:21 AM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Hello Guix! > > This is the formal submission of “Migrating repositories, issues, and > patches to Codeberg” (GCD 002), a preliminary draft of which I posted > before the Guix Days⁰. I support this proposal! It's about time! The

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

Hi Ricardo, On Fri, Mar 07 2025, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Surely you are not suggesting that my desire to work on Guix [...] > would be sufficient in reducing the backlog of bugs? The remainder of my message made that clear but you were offended and hit reply too fast. My observation was about t

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

Andreas Enge writes: > my observation was rather the inverse: our current debbugs approch > struggles for patch series. Ah, my bad. I mistook "issues" to mean issues on a forge as opposed to a debbugs issue. Thank you for correcting. > Which says nothing about the experience on a forge, logic

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

order to be a bit more incremental [1]. And 2. To help in implementing a simple one-way bridge [2]: report the open PR inside Debbugs. Cheers, simon 1: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg Simon Tournier Thu, 06 Mar 2025 17:36:29 +0100 id:874j066rqq@gmai

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

Felix, On Fri, Mar 07 2025, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: I'd rather work on Guix. Then why is there a backlog of bugs? This is such an odd thing to ask, I cannot convince myself that it's a serious question asked in good faith. Surely you are not suggesting that my desire to work on Guix rath

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

Hello, Am Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 09:40:28AM -0500 schrieb Suhail Singh: > Based on Andreas's observations in [1]: > It seems if we are basing our experimentations on only "trivial patches" > that are sent to , we may not be > observing the instances where a forge-s

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

Hi Ricardo, On Fri, Mar 07 2025, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > I'd rather work on Guix. Then why is there a backlog of bugs? I only see a group of software developers unable to close more bugs than are being opened. It's not because of technical limitations, but because the committers are overwhelme

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

Ludovic Courtès writes: > As for experimenting, I agree and I reiterate my invitation to send > trivial patches to (or to > Guix-Science, Guix-Past, etc.). I think this GCD’s discussion period is > the right time to give it a try as it can better inform discus

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

Hello, I also agree that we should either not switch, or switch with a short period of overlap. It does not make sense to spread our limited time to work on two systems at the same time. And it definitely does not make sense to spend additional development work (by whom?) to create a bridge betwee

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

Divya Ranjan writes: We have a *humongous* backlog of patches, [...] [...] we host a backend service that regularly checks the Codeberg repository for any new issues or PRs and then communicates to us through the Codeberg’s Forgejo API [0] the content of said issues and PRs. The data recei

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

Hello Carlo, > I don't think this is a fair summary of the goal. The first sentence of > the GCD[1] is: > > The contribution workflow in Guix has been facing several challenges: > difficult onboarding, lack of legibility, complex, unreliable, and > labor-intensive infrastructure, and lack of

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

Hi Divya, On Fri, Mar 07 2025, Divya Ranjan via Guix-patches via wrote: > To achieve our goal of helping newcomers, [...] I don't think this is a fair summary of the goal. The first sentence of the GCD[1] is: The contribution workflow in Guix has been facing several challenges: difficult onb

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

Hello Guix devs, I concur with Ekaitz’s observation: > We would be pushing that complexity only to committers, not to > ocasional contributors, which may help attracting people. But, on the > other hand, we would force people who is already very busy (and very > efficient with their current workf

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

Hi, On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 at 22:54, Ludovic Courtès 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 Cod

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

Hi, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: >> Developing and maintaining this software and infrastructure is >> time-consuming. Worse, it leaves contributors largely dissatisfied for >> a variety of reasons: > > I don't think maintaining the infrastructure *that would be replaced* > has been too time consumi

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

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Graves skribis: > have a tremendous amount of data (for git commits, git commit messages, > email exchanges) that could be used to train specialized AI agents that > could be very useful in CI / development contexts. A few examples on the > top of my mind: > - a commit messag

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

On 2025-02-23 16:20, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > [...] > ## Continuous Integration > > Forgejo supports > [*webhooks*](https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/webhooks/), `POST` > requests that are sent to the server of one’s choice upon events such as > pull request creation. Cuirass (

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

Alexis Simon writes: Everyone preferring (or simply only knowing) the classic fork-PR can go this way. Correct. Any person that would prefer not forking and working mostly from the command-line can do so through the Agit flow. But from the commiter/reviewer POV, this will look identical,

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

On 2025-03-04 19:55, Noé Lopez wrote: Here’s my point of view: - clone the upstream repository - make commits - format patches - configure git send-mail - …or find out which addresses to send the mail and who to cc with etc/teams.scm - send email Of course, I was just making it simple on purp

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

Ekaitz Zarraga writes: > On 2025-03-04 18:19, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> >> The AGit flow: >> >> - clone the upstream repository >> - checkout a new branch >> - make a commit >> - push the commit as a PR to the forge. > > Yes but no. > It's easy, but if we are going to make any contributor do tha

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

On 2025-03-04 18:19, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: The AGit flow: - clone the upstream repository - checkout a new branch - make a commit - push the commit as a PR to the forge. Yes but no. It's easy, but if we are going to make any contributor do that, we are still going to need documentation and p

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

Ekaitz Zarraga writes: On 2025-03-04 12:22, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: - The flow would be*even* more confusing than now, since it'd look like Github but require committers to use it very differently. This is a very interesting take. I have a similar view when we mention A-Git-Flow

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

On 2025-03-04 12:22, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: - The flow would be*even* more confusing than now, since it'd look like Github but require committers to use it very differently. This is a very interesting take. I have a similar view when we mention A-Git-Flow or whatever that is. We would be

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

Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: [...] > However, to overcome several limitations, the project developed > processes and tools, which can be characterized as *incidental > complexity*: > > - because the Debbugs web interface is crude by today’s standards and > hard to search and naviga

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

Hi, thanks for the updated GCD. I'm in favor of it. Anyhow, some remarks: 1) Regarding the AGit workflow discussed: This looks interesting (haven't tried yet). I suggest adding a section to the GCD that this will be documented within 30 days following acceptance of this GCD (or even earlier)

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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 02:12:40AM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > This doesn't take care of existing repositories, and it is possible to > handle that as well but the way I know does require practical control > over the infrastructure (there may be better ways though that works > without ss

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

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:15:01 +0100 Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Donnerstag, dem 13.02.2025 um 10:30 + schrieb Attila Lendvai: > > > Here's my perspective: it will cost us basically nothing to rename > > > the master branch, > > > > i suspect you'd be surprised how many places will need

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

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:44:42 +0100 Ekaitz Zarraga wrote: > [...] in Git there's no slave. Personally I find 'main' more accurate precisely because of that. Git enables to more easily maintain branches (not necessarily in the same repository) with modifications on top, and/or to diverge, and so f

  1   2   3   >