Hi all, Speaking as a new first-time contributor, since this discussion touches the newcomer experience:
I am using the agit workflow for the first time as well. This was a personal preference; I find the agit workflow sensible. I don't need to host my personal fork of Guix online. > The move to Codeberg was motivated by a will to "modernise" and to "do > things as other projects do" and "what people are used to" (read: > Github), to make it easier for new contributors to take part. > This means we have to provide the usual workflow of forking and creating > pull requests from forks; if we want unusual or arcane approaches, that > is where we came from ;-) I didn't feel that agit was arcane or difficult to use, both from emacs and the git CLI. It's well documented in the master branch and there are resources online. It isn't a radically different workflow than forking a repo. There isn't much new concept beyond the "topic" and a slightly different mental model. For what it's worth, I do not think it would be a barrier to entry for anyone with a basic exposure to git. This is speculative and may be off-topic, but I would not be surprised if agit becomes a standard workflow across all major providers given the current challenges they are facing (hardware, usage spike). > Actually I have already heard complaints by an (unsuccessful) new > contributor that they were unable to fork, which sheds a bad light on > Guix and on Codeberg as having unreliable or not working > infrastructure. I believe the new 'Contributing' documentation will help with this issue; it even offers multiple editors configurations. It is probably acceptable to think that a new contributor will read the 'Contributing' section. However, as it isn't the most well-known way of interacting with git hosting provider (yet?), there is an argument in putting it closer to the front page. Alo.
