On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:55:14 -0600 Colby wrote: > You can shoot the messenger after taking issue with something they've > shed light on, as is happening here, or you could just... not.
sry i am only trying to understand your perspective, or the nature of that "something" under illumination are you suggesting that it would benefit the project, to designate the github or pagure replicas as primary? (or to where the web page directs users, for code, bug reports, and/or discussions) the corollary of that being, that it is harmful to a project, to use only savannah - is this your perspective? - if so, then our perspectives are probably in close agreement - for years, i have been suggesting the adoption of some "modern-web" forge to GNU people - ie: i am that: "the messenger"; and the proposal has been shot down several times - i found that most GNU projects prefer VCS+email; and that most GNU projects do not actually use or pay attention to savannah's "web-forge" features (only it's auxiliary services VCS, FTP, and email) that is the reason why savannah may be seen as unpopular or hosting "dead" projects - most savannah projects simply do not use the savannah web GUI - all the activity is evident in the email archives, the VCS, etc, but perhaps not so evident when using only a web browser the primary reason to keep savannah as primary/canonical, is because FSF/GNU operates the host (self-reliance) - IMHO, all project should strive for self-reliance WRT critical infrastructure - of course, this does not obviate the use of third-party forges as secondary, for people who prefer the webby workflow FWIW, the proposed FSF forge may be a pagure instance (or sh.ht, or gitlab) - i would suggest directing users to that enthusiastically, if it existed (the plan has languished a long time) but again (my original reply to this thread), active team members would need to agree to watch that forge (or new people would need to volunteer) - the key term is: "active" (not: "team members") - merely displaying it on the website is not enough - as of today, all discussion and patches have been on the mailing lists; and i have been relaying bug reports to and from those unofficial forges and the mailing lists - i do not need to be a "team member", in order to accomplish that - any "active" member of the community could from my perspective, this patch affected me alone, and was potentially an extra burden; so i was somewhat compelled to raise some objection - i have nothing against pagure - in 2016, we (the peers community) evaluated it as the most libre-friendly forge, of the dozen or so we evaluated; and i have commits in its VCS - it was my initiative to establish the pagure.io/librejs repo, for an urgent special purpose the librejs project is in a peculiar state of limbo currently - it is not quite clear who is "at the wheel", or which acknowledged team members are participating, or even reading the discussions - so over-all, this patch ignited a productive conversation unfortunately, the conclusion of the conversation seems to be, that no other team members have volunteered to watch third-party forges, or agreed to recognize them as "official" - perhaps opinions would change when/if the FSF decides to host a forge
