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

[Suhail Singh]

Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> writes:

> - writing comments on a PR or issue in emacs

I have yet to see a way (that works with existing forges) that matches
the ease of replying to an email, but I look forward to being proven
wrong and pleasantly surprised.

> what i wanted to point out is that it's not a lot of effort to
> automate on the client side -- either using guile scripts, or with
> some code in emacs --, *if* the infra has a sane API. and i assume
> that that is the case with codeberg in 2025.

Perhaps.  But unless someone commits to doing the work, I think the
decision should be made with the acknowledgement that it's possible that
the above doesn't happen for the foreseeable future.  And it's possible
that that's okay, but then that's a stance I would like the proposal to
clarify (as opposed to leaving it unstated).

While, personally, I would miss being unable to simply respond to patch
emails in order to review, I acknowledge that the things I care about
may be an outlier in the community.  As such, I am not advocating (yet)
against a move, I am simply advocating for acknowledging the possible
ramifications when it comes to the review process.

> it shouldn't take a lot of effort to write some thin emacs code that
> displays the codeberg data in an emacs buffer.
>
> making it work offline and sync later is probably substantially more
> work, but it should still not be an insurmountable task.
>
> and nothing of that would be guix specific! these are probably already
> being worked on somewhere (i.e. division of labor):
>
> https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/delightful-forgejo#clients
> (A curated list of delightful Forgejo-related projects and resources.)

I think some of the above (perhaps phrased somewhat differently) would
be relevant addition to the proposal (and should be contained therein).

-- 
Suhail