On 01 Apr 2022 02:28, Sam James wrote: > > On 1 Apr 2022, at 02:27, Sam James wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2022, at 18:56, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> [snip] > > > >> this is all orthogonal to the git content itself (objects, branches, tags, > >> etc...). those should remain in the read-only clobber mode that exists now. > >> > >> there is no downside for Gentoo here. it's all functionality that can be > >> had for free, does not introduce any risks, and many devs are already using > >> GH heavily for Gentoo projects -- albeit, they don't do it under the Gentoo > >> umbrella, they fork it into their own personal space and maintain it there. > > > > Yep, and I'm guilty of this as well. I've started making a list of some important > > repos we really need to mirror onto our infra at least (inc, but not limited to, > > pkgcore). > > Sorry, just to finish making the point I'd intended on here: while this might > be true, I don't think it's a reason to depend on it more where there's > a decent argument against it. It's just a reason to actually migrate > away or at least ensure we have contingencies? my point is that it's hypocritical to say "Gentoo projects may not use GH" while actively ignoring that Gentoo projects not under the Gentoo umbrella are using GH exclusively, and there is no one pushing back against them. [0] further, since there is nothing in the Gentoo social contract or any other policy document saying that Gentoo projects may not use GH, banning it is not justified, and only serves to restrict access to free resources. if anything, this position actively goes against the Gentoo philosophy [1]: one based in pragmatism without compromising on the software being free and open [2]. -mike [0] to be clear: i'm not saying such projects must move to Gentoo infra. i'm fine with them being on GH as long as they're free software and their VCS's are readily available. [1] https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/ [2] https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html