On 2025-09-28 19:42, Collin Funk wrote:
Arsen Arsenović <[email protected]> writes:
Dragan Simic <[email protected]> writes:
On 2025-09-28 11:31, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
IMO this is a good idea. New contributors would likely find the
workflow easier (even though I personally like a mail-based workflow
a
lot), we can incorporate automated testing, and Codeberg appears to
be
ideologically aligned with the GNU project goals.
Would sending patches through a mailing list disappear as an option
after the migration to Codebeerg? I'd find that a huge step back.
There might be no need for that for coreutils (which is relatively
simple to test - consistent and automated testing is the core benefit
of
forges IMO).
That said, it'd be good to address whatever concerns you might have
with
such a switch to see if it is possible to build up improvements in
workflow.
Myself and I assume others, who may correct me if I am wrong, still
like
mailing lists. Therefore, I would be for keeping that as the primary
way
to report bugs/send patches.
I also prefer mailing lists. They offer flexibility that no forge can
even come close by, simply because on mailing lists nearly nothing has
to be in some strictly predefined layout or conforming to some strict
form. For example, I'm unaware of any forge that offers fully threaded
discussions about pull requests and issues, which are simply mandatory
for any kind of complex discussion.
On top of everything, forges pull the metadata, as what's contained in
the discussions, into some kind of their own format that's either tied
to the particular forge or isn't some simple data format that can be
used with no need for tools that are more complex than a pager such as
less(1). Mailing lists don't do any of that, and they allow everyone
to have a full local copy of all the metadata, which can only be good
in the long term. Metadata is gold.
I don't think anyone will complain if the Codeberg interface leads to
more *quality* bug reports and patches, though. Some of us track the
pull requests and bugs on the GitHub mirror. But the closed history
there will show a lot of spam.
I think people are focussing a bit too much on the need for having new
contributors, which actually may or may not prefer the GitHub-style
workflow. Assuming that by default all new contributors prefer that
kind of workflow and find the mailing lists as a huge barrier to entry
is simply a false assumption. See, I was a new contributor to quite
a few projects, and I always preferred mailing lists.
Also, focusing too much on the new contributors and not thinking about
the already existing ones at the same time may not be the best approach
in the long run.
