On 15/07/2025 03:09, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
>> Hi all
>>
>> Do people want Forgejo or Gitlab on code.ffmpeg.org for testing?
>>
>> F. code.ffmpeg.org should run Forgejo
>> G. code.ffmpeg.org should run Gitlab
> 
> No strong opinion between the two. I have a lot of experience with Gitlab 
> (which I find quite workable - although perhaps not the nicest thing in 
> the world), no experience with Forgejo.
> 
>> * and a month or 2 after that we can re-asses how many people use code.ffmpeg.org
>>  and how many use the ML. Then we could decide to keep using both
>>  in parallel or switch back to ML or just use code.ffmpeg.org. Or in fact
>>  we could switch between Gitlab or Forgejo here still as well.
> 
> I'd like to point out that we probably shouldn't be flip-flopping too much 
> between different tools - as the review history of patches ideally should 
> be kept available for future readers of the code as well. But running a 
> couple-month experiment and then deciding to switch fully or not, sounds 
> like a reasonable way to me. But the end goal should be one canonical 
> tool/process, not many in parallel IMO.
> 

+1

-- 
Frank