Closing the PR without providing feedback beyond "needs further discussion" does not engender said further discussion.

PunchyHamster 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

PR isn't a place for discussion about what or how to implement change in the first place, that should be forum/mailing list/issues

and there is open issue for that discussion https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/8634

	▲	johnmaguire 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		#8634 is specifically about a breaking change that occurred in v12. It's literally the first line of what you linked: > In the v12 release of Forgejo (fixed in v12.0.1) there have been breaking changes that impact third-party authentication sources that use Forgejo as a provider. If you have been affected, please help us assessing the impact ...

▲

henryteeare 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The response was, "needs a discussion," as in a post on `https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions`, rather than directly creating a PR.

There also was feedback saying approximately that they've been burned by security changes in the recent past and don't want to run into similar issues without due consideration.