Re: [gentoo-project] Call for Agenda Items -- Council Meeting 2015-10-11

[hasufell]

On 10/08/2015 05:01 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> So perhaps it was unwise for us to get into a situation where either 1)
> we violate the Social Contract or 2) we have to surmount a technically
> difficult situation.
>

Sorry to jump in without contributing anything useful, but this has been
really going on for too long.

We do not violate the Social Contract in any way. Anyone is free to fork
gentoo and serve it on mirrors which run totally proprietary software
and accept contributions there.

But gentoo does _not_ depend on that infrastructure, because we still
have our own mirrors and contribution platforms.

If people use alternative platforms, then that is their own choice. And
a lot of gentoo developers and overlays do that since years (you'd have
to shut all of them down, including the gentoo github organization).
However, it has never deprecated our own infrastructure channels and as
long as that is true, all these "social contract violated" mails are
pure FUD.

So yes, 2) is correct, 1) not.


So, now to the useful part:

In case infra cares, there's an alternative solution to gitlab which is
called gogs [0]. Previously it was lacking pull request support and
because of that it was pretty useless as a contribution platform. But
that has been implemented now [1]. The only deal-breaker left are
performance problems with repositories which have a huge amount of
folders (like gentoo) [2].
It is very easy to deploy and there are numerous docker images [3][4]
available.
It also supports Github OAuth, which will make it painless for drive-by
contributors.


[0] http://gogs.io/
[1] https://github.com/gogits/gogs/issues/5
[2] https://github.com/gogits/gogs/issues/1518
[3] https://github.com/gogits/gogs/tree/master/docker
[4] https://github.com/hasufell/docker-gentoo-gogs

omg... those are all hosted on github! social contract to the rescue