On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:40 PM H. Nikolaus Schaller <[email protected]> wrote: > > - The code is not in the main repos > > It is on github: https://github.com/goldelico/swi
Footer links to https://projects.goldelico.com/p/swi/. This is fine, but the path to contributing should be clearer. > > - I don't have admin privileges to touch the database > > - Even as a regular user I don't have any sort of login credentials. > > What do you need them for? The workflow is based on the assumption > that everybody can openly contribute and reviewers/moderators delete > spam. Counterpoint: what's wrong with open reviews, where everyone can see the pull request adding a new file, and any core contributor to the project can approve/disapprove without going through a bespoke admin UI? Would it be worse if every contributor could copy the entire *dataset* of gs.org SWI at any time (something we were not doing with code on gna.org)? > What is the benefit of cloning it? Archival. Survivability. See: gna.org shutdown. We'd never have moved to Git if disaster didn't force *something* to happen. A move to Git has also always meant we can drop Github if we choose to. > > They're less and less of a standard these days. > > This is not my impression. But I may be biased. Anecdotally: of people around me, I know only one person still happily working on backend development in PHP. Less anecdotally: even the largest formerly-PHP service in the world has opted to write their own dialect, compiler and finally a bytecode virtual machine. Additionally, widest deployed Fediverse services are written in Ruby and Elixir respectively.
