Am Dienstag, den 25.02.2020, 23:38 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > Jonas Hahnfeld < > hah...@hahnjo.de > > writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > I was meaning to write on the next steps of switching to new tooling > > when I came across this: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/813254/rss > > > > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/sysadmin/coming-soon-a-new-site-for-fully-free-collaboration > > > > https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Fsf_2019_forge_evaluation > > > > > > In particular the last page claims with respect to GitLab: > > "GNU ethical repo criteria: gitlab.com listed as C, but has been > > operating at an F and will be reclassified soon because it sometimes > > requires users to run nonfree Google ReCAPTCHA code they have been very > > slowly working on moving away from for almost 2 years now [...]" > > > > What do people think about this? Is that serious enough to stop > > considering GitLab? > > > > Note that Gerrit is not on the list (probably because it's not a > > complete forge software, ie no issues?), so I can't comment on how it > > compares with respect to freedom. > > > > Let me see if I can get more information on when they plan to bring the > > hosting platform online. > > We don't have a whole lot of viable alternatives at the moment. And we > have the problem that LilyPond is pretty large (even discounting the CI > thing) for being a well-beloved free-tier customer. > > Being supported by the FSF certainly would solve some worries (not > likely CI) but they are not exactly bristling in manpower either. > > So it would be interesting in several respects what the FSF is planning > to do and support, and how viable for a big project what they are > thinking about could be. > > The FSF has in recent months been hit heavily by Richard Stallman > stepping back as president of the FSF and the FSF having to more > formally redefine their manner of providing support for the GNU project. > That may have affected the speed with which they are progressing with > that project. > > At any rate, there is nothing wrong with trying to get more information > for arriving at a decision, so it would be great for you to figure out > what the current plans regarding project hosting are.
So I tried, but not very successfully: There have been some posts to repo-criteria-discuss in January and last October, but not in between. The mentioned list libreplanet-dev is empty, except for one reaction to the blog post. Same holds for savannah-hackers-public. Unless I missed a very obvious place, I'm not sure where the discussions are taking place... I also had a look at the evaluated software: * For Pagure, there exists an importer script from GitHub and the now shut down fedorahosted.org. However I can't even get a small project of mine migrated and there's close to no documentation on this interface. Looking into the source code hasn't helped either. * Gitea also recently got a migration interface. Again only for GitHub, and it didn't work either when I tried. To make things even worse, the interface is internal only so you need to write the migration logic in Go, wait for a release and deploy it to the server. * I found no migration of issues to SourceHut, it's probably too new. All three of them also have APIs that allow to create issues / tickets / whatever they name it. However you can't supply the ids, they are autogenerated. Long story short: We would not be able to migrate our existing issues from SF and retain their ids. I consider this a blocker, and I don't have any hint to believe that this possibility will suddenly appear. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
