~adnano/gemini

18 11

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net>
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
So far I have not seen anyone advocating for remaining on Gitlab, and I
have seen plenty of people advocating for Sourcehut or something
similarly simple. Additionally, the specification currently has no
maintainer.

Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
repositories today.

=> https://sr.ht/~u9000/gemini-specification/ Sourcehut project

As I do not have an abundance of excess time, I would love for someone
to step-up to fill Sean's role. If needed, however, I can do so.

I hope this move will allow more people to contribute to the project---
even if they cannot create an account---and rejuvenate the specification
discussions.

-- 
u9000 (Nine)
They, Them, Theirs

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<CAHBARKcuYTVXZ=1fsF3RArbA4=sXQDdwpa_Jrqc9YeRunQhCKw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi u9000,

I have a Github action which mirrors Github issues to a sourcehut TODO [1].
It's obviously not plug and play in this context, but perhaps it would make a
good starting point for a cronjob so you don't have to manually copy issues
as they arise.

Cheers,

Andrew
gemini.thorp.dev

[1] https://github.com/aThorp96/sourcehut_issue_mirror

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<21783bc55b7262482aab0eb664a80d35769dacda.camel@posteo.net>
In-Reply-To
<CAHBARKcuYTVXZ=1fsF3RArbA4=sXQDdwpa_Jrqc9YeRunQhCKw@mail.gmail.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 10:22 -0400, Andrew Thorp wrote:
> I have a Github action which mirrors Github issues to a sourcehut TODO [1].
> It's obviously not plug and play in this context, but perhaps it would make a
> good starting point for a cronjob so you don't have to manually copy issues
> as they arise.

Thank you; I will look into making this work.

Cheers,
-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs
Details
Message ID
<20211021160136.ipiittoo3o4nwmjq@GLaDOS.local>
In-Reply-To
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Funny, I made my own last night:
=> https://sr.ht/~nytpu/Gemini-Specification/
I'll delete it in a bit, I don't want to fragment the spec finalization.

I didn't want to fill Solderpunk or Sean Conner's role either, I was
going to modify the specifications in accordance with the things that
Solderpunk and Sean Conner made a relatively final decision on in the
Gitlab and mailing list, and then open tickets for the rest.

~nytpu

-- 
Alex // nytpu
alex at nytpu.com
gpg --locate-external-key alex at nytpu.com
Omar Polo <op@omarpolo.com>
Details
Message ID
<874k9a46g4.fsf@omarpolo.com>
In-Reply-To
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
just one thing: before copying the specification text etc I would
probably make sure what the license really is.

AFAICS there's no license, neither in the original text from solderpunk
nor in the rfc draft from Sean, which means that they hold all the
rights on those texts.

IANAL, so maybe what you're doing fells under the fair use, I don't
know, my intention was just to make sure this point was taken into
consideration.

good luck

u9000 <u9000 at posteo.mx> writes:

> So far I have not seen anyone advocating for remaining on Gitlab, and I
> have seen plenty of people advocating for Sourcehut or something
> similarly simple. Additionally, the specification currently has no
> maintainer.
>
> Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
> trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
> repositories today.
>
> => https://sr.ht/~u9000/gemini-specification/ Sourcehut project
>
> As I do not have an abundance of excess time, I would love for someone
> to step-up to fill Sean's role. If needed, however, I can do so.
>
> I hope this move will allow more people to contribute to the project---
> even if they cannot create an account---and rejuvenate the specification
> discussions.
Details
Message ID
<9c563c5c7a0df0645d108ab89d9f83a93572bd43.camel@clarkschool.com>
In-Reply-To
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 10:10 -0400, u9000 wrote:
> Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
> trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
> repositories today.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I hope this move will allow more people to contribute to the project---
> even if they cannot create an account---and rejuvenate the specification
> discussions.

Sean, I know that you gave up your position a few weeks ago, but if you
still have push access, could you please add license files to the Gitlab
repositories? There aren't any right now, but all of the commits are
yours, so you can adding them now wouldn't infringe on anyone else's
copyright.

-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Sean Conner <sean@conman.org>
Details
Message ID
<20211021203306.GA17316@brevard.conman.org>
In-Reply-To
<874k9a46g4.fsf@omarpolo.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
It was thus said that the Great Omar Polo once stated:
> just one thing: before copying the specification text etc I would
> probably make sure what the license really is.

  If it would help, you have my permission to do that.  If you need a
license, is a 0BSD (Zero-clause BSD) license or one of the CC licenses okay? 
I can quickly add it to the repo.

  -spc
Details
Message ID
<009e59bd4ddaadc02a4e92c6d91502bacc2ad293.camel@posteo.net>
In-Reply-To
<874k9a46g4.fsf@omarpolo.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 19:43 +0200, Omar Polo wrote:

> just one thing: before copying the specification text etc I would
> probably make sure what the license really is.
> 
> AFAICS there's no license, neither in the original text from solderpunk
> nor in the rfc draft from Sean, which means that they hold all the
> rights on those texts.
> 
> IANAL, so maybe what you're doing fells under the fair use, I don't
> know, my intention was just to make sure this point was taken into
> consideration.

That's a good point. I don't believe it does fall under Fair Use, so I
will wait until there is a license before continuing the move.

> good luck

Thank you.

Cheers,
-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Sean Conner <sean@conman.org>
Details
Message ID
<20211022005113.GB17316@brevard.conman.org>
In-Reply-To
<9c563c5c7a0df0645d108ab89d9f83a93572bd43.camel@clarkschool.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
It was thus said that the Great u9000 once stated:
> On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 10:10 -0400, u9000 wrote:
> > Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
> > trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
> > repositories today.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > I hope this move will allow more people to contribute to the project---
> > even if they cannot create an account---and rejuvenate the specification
> > discussions.
> 
> Sean, I know that you gave up your position a few weeks ago, but if you
> still have push access, could you please add license files to the Gitlab
> repositories? There aren't any right now, but all of the commits are
> yours, so you can adding them now wouldn't infringe on anyone else's
> copyright.

  Done.

  -spc

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Lars Noodén <lars.nooden@gmx.com>
Details
Message ID
<5c88c3c0-7b93-1519-9f2f-9cc240a14bd0@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To
<20211022005113.GB17316@brevard.conman.org> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Since it has not been mentioned in this thread yet, what is the link to
the authoritative version control system instance?  It's not mentioned
in the documentation [1] yet either.

/Lars

[1]	gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/

Re: Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<9DDD832E-0ED6-49A6-A88E-739328E45DD7@iosa.it>
In-Reply-To
<5c88c3c0-7b93-1519-9f2f-9cc240a14bd0@gmx.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message

Il 22 ottobre 2021 06:08:57 CEST, "Lars Nood?n" <lars.nooden at gmx.com> ha scritto:
>Since it has not been mentioned in this thread yet, what is the link to
>the authoritative version control system instance?  It's not mentioned
>in the documentation [1] yet either.

It is mentioned in the FAQ section 4.2 "How do I contribute to the official Gemini site and documentation?" at gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi

The git repository is at git://gemini.circumlunar.space/gemini-site

It has not been updated in a long time.
All the best
steko
Details
Message ID
<20211022165747.2328A1CC01C6@dd49836.kasserver.com>
In-Reply-To
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

i'm sad to see Sean go, but i'm also exicted that there are still people 
around who are interested in finalizing the spec.
Maybe when things settled and a few people interested in further discussion
have come to consensus we should reach out to solderpunk 
with a proposal of how things could go on.

That being said, i'd like to throw another suggestion in for discussion:
> Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
> trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
> repositories today.
> 
> => https://sr.ht/~u9000/gemini-specification/ Sourcehut project

Instead of moving to yet another source forge that caused emotional reactions
within the community for multiple times for different reasons, 
we should go for self-hosting.
If there is any interest from the community i'd be happy to provide a gitea
instance especially focused on projects for gemini (not limited to the spec). 
I've been running my own gitea instance for quite some time now [1] and i'm
maintaining geminispace.info, the widely used public search engine for gemini.

Comments highly appreciated. I'd flesh out some more details about my ideas if you are interested.

regards
Ren?

[1]: https://src.clttr.info

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<CF64Y03ZZK5C.JY5UG17DQIA@nitro>
In-Reply-To
<20211022165747.2328A1CC01C6@dd49836.kasserver.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Fri Oct 22, 2021 at 12:57 PM EDT, Ren? Wagner wrote:
> That being said, i'd like to throw another suggestion in for discussion:
> > Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
> > trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
> > repositories today.
> > 
> > => https://sr.ht/~u9000/gemini-specification/ Sourcehut project
>
> Instead of moving to yet another source forge that caused emotional reactions
> within the community for multiple times for different reasons,
> we should go for self-hosting.
> If there is any interest from the community i'd be happy to provide a gitea
> instance especially focused on projects for gemini (not limited to the spec).
> I've been running my own gitea instance for quite some time now [1] and i'm
> maintaining geminispace.info, the widely used public search engine for gemini.

One of the benefits of using Sourcehut is that one does not need an
account to participate. Projects typically accept patches via email, and
the mailing lists and ticket trackers are open to anyone with an email
address.

Sourcehut can also be self-hosted if desired, though the process is
likely more involved than that for Gitea.

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<c1293fd0e94b6f2328e3ff937707d4d61e5e3da8.camel@posteo.net>
In-Reply-To
<CF64Y03ZZK5C.JY5UG17DQIA@nitro> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 14:08 -0400, Adnan Maolood wrote:
> On Fri Oct 22, 2021 at 12:57 PM EDT, Ren? Wagner wrote:
> > That being said, i'd like to throw another suggestion in for discussion:
> > > Because of this, I have taken the liberty of creating a project and bug
> > > trackers on Sourcehut. I will be coping the Gitlab issues and
> > > repositories today.
> > > 
> > > => https://sr.ht/~u9000/gemini-specification/ Sourcehut project
> > 
> > Instead of moving to yet another source forge that caused emotional reactions
> > within the community for multiple times for different reasons,
> > we should go for self-hosting.
> > If there is any interest from the community i'd be happy to provide a gitea
> > instance especially focused on projects for gemini (not limited to the spec).
> > I've been running my own gitea instance for quite some time now [1] and i'm
> > maintaining geminispace.info, the widely used public search engine for gemini.
> 
> One of the benefits of using Sourcehut is that one does not need an
> account to participate. Projects typically accept patches via email, and
> the mailing lists and ticket trackers are open to anyone with an email
> address.
> 
> Sourcehut can also be self-hosted if desired, though the process is
> likely more involved than that for Gitea.

Gitea also has similar Javascript issues to Gitlab. Even without email,
one can comfortably browse Sourcehut in Lynx. But thank you for offering
to host the project, Ren?.

-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<20211022194546.B16C41CC0043@dd49836.kasserver.com>
In-Reply-To
<c1293fd0e94b6f2328e3ff937707d4d61e5e3da8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi all!

> One of the benefits of using Sourcehut is that one does not need an
> account to participate. Projects typically accept patches via email, and
> the mailing lists and ticket trackers are open to anyone with an email
> address.

> Gitea also has similar Javascript issues to Gitlab. Even without email,
> one can comfortably browse Sourcehut in Lynx. But thank you for offering
> to host the project, Ren?.
These are for sure valid points for chosing SourceHut.
My experience with communitys in various flavours told me to step back
from having a completely open system in favour of some sort of 
registration/moderation. But i understand that sometimes it is more 
important to have the barrier for contribution as low as possible.

> Sourcehut can also be self-hosted if desired, though the process is
> likely more involved than that for Gitea.
I had a look in self-hosting SourceHut before choosing gemini, so my
knowledge might be outdated. But back than it needed way more effort
to get it going than i can do in my spare time.

> Additionally there is the risk of a self-hosted gitea instance going down 
> and there are maintenance costs which would be imposed on the hoster. 
> It would be great to have the source self-hosted but for the stability 
> and longevity of the community I'm not sure if it's the best decision.
> I support DJ's decision to use Sourcehut.
This can happen with a commercial hosting as well. As far as i know you 
need to have a paid account on Sourcehut to have public repos, 
so in the end someone will need to pay anyway.
If we move to another source forge of any kind and stick with having a
single person owning the repos nothing is won compared the 
situation we are facing currently.

We need to gather a team of interested people to increase the bus factor
of the project.

regards
Ren?

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<CAHBARKcc=KSYTapy+4OX=Tn9Z90hjLDYpqGUY7RxqCNv81=3CA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20211022194546.B16C41CC0043@dd49836.kasserver.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
> This can happen with a commercial hosting as well.

This is true. Commercial products like Sourcehut have SLAs they must
meet however.

> If we move to another source forge of any kind and stick with having a
> single person owning the repos nothing is won compared the
> situation we are facing currently.

I completely agree. One downside to Sourcehut is as of right now is the
lack of an organizational construct. That's something that will be
launched when Sourcehut releases beta however. It won't be free, but
it should allow the community to transfer ownership over to a group of
volunteers.

Cheers,

Andrew

Gemini on Sourcehut (was Re: News----good, bad, ugly? You decide (was Re: [spec] comments on the proposed gemini spec revisions))

Details
Message ID
<d2eb9a658be4f1430cbf4d0afdacafbf0d2aa42c.camel@posteo.net>
In-Reply-To
<20211022194546.B16C41CC0043@dd49836.kasserver.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 21:45 +0200, Ren? Wagner wrote:
> > Additionally there is the risk of a self-hosted gitea instance going down 
> > and there are maintenance costs which would be imposed on the hoster. 
> > It would be great to have the source self-hosted but for the stability 
> > and longevity of the community I'm not sure if it's the best decision.
> > I support DJ's decision to use Sourcehut.
> This can happen with a commercial hosting as well. As far as i know you 
> need to have a paid account on Sourcehut to have public repos, 
> so in the end someone will need to pay anyway.

I agree that commercial hosting can also go down, but I think that paid-
hosting is much less likely to go down than self-hosted server is.

> If we move to another source forge of any kind and stick with having a
> single person owning the repos nothing is won compared the 
> situation we are facing currently.
> 
> We need to gather a team of interested people to increase the bus factor
> of the project.

This is a good point; the previous maintainers both eventually burnt-out
- presumably because of the size of the project and a few other factors.
Perhaps 2?4 co-maintainers, instead of a single maintainer, would help.
What are people's opinions on this?

-- 
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs
Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane@sources.org>
Details
Message ID
<YXUnr1piB5exGmmH@sources.org>
In-Reply-To
<0527ca73570b9956e5d53f2690b0a42895b1cdc8.camel@posteo.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 02:10:56PM +0000,
 u9000 <u9000 at posteo.mx> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> So far I have not seen anyone advocating for remaining on Gitlab,
> and I have seen plenty of people advocating for Sourcehut or
> something similarly simple.

Nobody complained about using a gitlab when it was first discussed. As
a general rule, nobody complains until something is actually done.

Thinking that moving to a different sofwtare will solve human and
group problems is naive. (But very common in the corporate world,
where a new group work software is deployed every year.)
Details
Message ID
<1ABF5084-5CF6-4D4D-9AF9-7792C64E8F6E@iosa.it>
In-Reply-To
<YXUnr1piB5exGmmH@sources.org> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message

Il 24 ottobre 2021 11:30:23 CEST, Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane at sources.org> ha scritto:

>Nobody complained about using a gitlab when it was first discussed. As
>a general rule, nobody complains until something is actually done.

Stephane, this is not true. Looking at the mailing list archives there are complaints about the choice of Gitlab dating as early as 2021-03-13. Those complaints were dismissed or ignored.

All the best,
steko
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)