On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:08:31 -0400, Robert Call (Bob) wrote: > In the recent past, some may remember that gitorious, a large host of > free software source code repositories for a number of projects, was > sold to a company who has has a record of not acting in the best > interest of the free software community. Gitorious was folded and many > projects were left without a place to host source code. The same can be > said for the non-free Google Code which became defunct a few months ago.
I wrote about this here: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/ Sytse Sijbrandij (CEO) and I have been working together and will continue to do. I'll have more information on that once we release GitLab's evaluation. > * advocate for individual projects to host their own source code > repositories While this is good from an SaaSS perspective, this is onerous for smaller projects, so it won't solve the problem---hosts are still needed for everyone else who isn't willing to do that. Repositories will also be mirrored---as is often the case today---on other hosts, and users may be more likely to get the code form there than on the official website, especially if that mirror is on a popular hosting service. > * draft a set of standards / practices to help fix the issue where > developers don't sign their source code. While I agree with the issue[0], that would be outside the scope of these criteria: The goal here is to provide criteria in determining whether a host itself is compatible with GNU's philosophy, and should not be used as a host for GNU projects. So we are talking about centralized services here, intentionally. If you have any decentralized services that you feel should be evaluated, please let us know. [0]: (outdated) http://mikegerwitz.com/papers/git-horror-story -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer http://mikegerwitz.com FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
