On 3/27/26 2:58 PM, Luca Toniolo wrote:
My irony-meter just overloaded and have to appreciate the boldness
of the statement :-)
>> /LinuxCNC/ is just a small volunteer-run party.
> Ha, fair point Bertho, I walked right into that one.
Happens to the best of us ;-)
But that's actually my argument. We are a small volunteer-run
project, which is exactly why we shouldn't be taking on additional
infrastructure to maintain. Every hour spent managing servers and CI
runners is an hour not spent on the actual codebase.
I don't think that managing all infrastructure ourselves is the best way
to proceed either. However, there are many middle ways to get things
done for least extra time. That said, I do not think we need to do all
that much work.
On a side note. Coherently managing the whole project is not only about
a git server or a CI pipeline. There are currently many disjoint servers
used, like web, forum, wiki and buildbot. And there are plenty of
problems with that because we lack the organisation to bundle resources
structurally and assure continuity on many levels. So I can understand
the reluctance to add to that burden. But we can create an organisation
to handle it. Others have done it before and we can learn from them. I'd
be happy with that, even if we need to drop some bells and whistles to
get there.
But what this discussion started is: Who do we allow to be custodian of
the data we generate in developing the project? That is what the copilot
thingy is about. I for one do not trust github as a good and honest
custodian. Github/Microsoft don't really care about what we actually
want, just their own bottom line, regardless who or what they need to
trample on. The copilot controversy exemplifies that very well.
--
Greetings Bertho
(disclaimers are disclaimed)
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
