Hello Collin,
On 2025-09-28 22:01, Collin Funk wrote:
Dragan Simic <[email protected]> writes:
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.
The discussion about forge pull request workflows and issue trackers
was
a side discussion for the most part. I did not suggest the change
because I dislike mailing lists or debbugs. I actually like both.
I only suggested the switch because GNU Savannah's git repositories are
frequently inaccessible, and recently very slow when they are available
(10 KiB/s) [1]. I was happy with the read-only mirror, but now I cannot
even 'git pull' from it. Since this has been ongoing for months, and
seems to be worsening, I have mostly given up hope it will be fixed.
[1]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2025-09/msg00013.html
I see, thanks for the clarification. That's surely annoying.
Let's also remember that SourceHut exists as well, which is AFAIK based
on the mailing list workflow. As such, it may be another candidate for
a Git repository switchover.
