💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 001049.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 18:16:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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
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
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
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@nytpu.com gpg --locate-external-key alex@nytpu.com
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@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.
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
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
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
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
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/
Il 22 ottobre 2021 06:08:57 CEST, "Lars Noodén" <lars.nooden@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
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:51:14 -0400, Sean Conner wrote: > > 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. Thanks! -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
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 René [1]: https://src.clttr.info
On Fri Oct 22, 2021 at 12:57 PM EDT, René 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.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:08:51 -0400, Adnan Maolood wrote: > On Fri Oct 22, 2021 at 12:57 PM EDT, René Wagner wrote: >> That being said, i'd like to throw another suggestion in for >> discussion: >> [...] >> 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. With the upcoming decentral newsgroup comp.infosystems.gemini in place, we could also think about discussing all the spec details in their own little threads and publish the thus evolved and agreed-upon spec in full periodically in the newsgroup itself – like a FAQ. That way Gemini would not need a central git repository, or am I missing something?
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 14:08 -0400, Adnan Maolood wrote: > On Fri Oct 22, 2021 at 12:57 PM EDT, René 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, René. -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 18:30 +0000, Plain Text wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:08:51 -0400, Adnan Maolood wrote: > > > On Fri Oct 22, 2021 at 12:57 PM EDT, René Wagner wrote: > > > That being said, i'd like to throw another suggestion in for > > > discussion: > > > [...] > > > 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. > > With the upcoming decentral newsgroup comp.infosystems.gemini in place, > we could also think about discussing all the spec details in their own > little threads and publish the thus evolved and agreed-upon spec in full > periodically in the newsgroup itself – like a FAQ. That way Gemini would > not need a central git repository, or am I missing something? > I think a central git repo is useful even if most of the discussion is on a newsgroup. Version control would still be needed in that situation. -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
While I think source distribution would be very inline with the Gemini ethos, I agree that it would be useful to have a canonical central git repo. 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. Cheers, Andrew
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, René. 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 René
> 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
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 21:45 +0200, René 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
Communities of Gemini and Tilde overlap quite a bit, I think. Tildeverse offers:
On Fri, 2021-10-22 at 20:30 +0000, Plain Text wrote: > Communities of Gemini and Tilde overlap quite a bit, I think. > > Tildeverse offers: > > * Wiki pages, e.g. https://tilde.wiki > * Gemini hosting, cf. https://tilde.wiki/wiki/Gemini > * Git hosting, e.g. thru Gitea on tildegit.org > * IRC, Gemini's IRC channel lives on tilde.chat > * NNTP, cf. https://tilde.wiki/wiki/NNTP > > Not sure if a Gemini focus would be in line with Tildes' ideas, though. > > Other mentions once included Codeberg and Wikiversity. > * Codeberg (ie. Gitea) needs some Javascript, we heard. > * Wikiversity is just for learning resources? Maybe debatable. > > Just some rough thoughts, thanks. > I agree that they overlap quite a bit, and personally, I enjoy that the IRC channel is on tildechat. I'm pretty sure that it's always been unofficial, though. I think that the Tildeverse is a great resource for the Gemini community, but I as well, am not confident in moving the project to the Tildeverse's Gitea instance. As an aside, I want to mention that there is also a Gemini XMPP room: geminauts@chat.kwiecien.us -- DJ Chase They, Them, Theirs
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 02:10:56PM +0000, u9000 <u9000@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.)
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 08:30:53PM -0000, Plain Text <text@sdfeu.org> wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > Communities of Gemini and Tilde overlap quite a bit, I think. > > Tildeverse offers: Last time I checked, Tilde services were closed, you needed an approbation to get in.
Il 24 ottobre 2021 11:30:23 CEST, Stephane Bortzmeyer <stephane@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
(I forgot to reply all so I'm sending this to the ML. Sorry for the double email Stephane!) October 24, 2021 5:31 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <stephane@sources.org> wrote: > Last time I checked, Tilde services were closed, you needed an > approbation to get in. Not true, all you need is an account on a tilde which is on our allowed domains list[1]. Furthermore, if you don't want to get a tilde account, you can email ben (ben AT tilde DOT team) with your desired username and a little about yourself, and he'll manually create the account for you. (I'd also be willing to help with that if we needed to, but I don't know what I would need to do to make accounts manually.) Just my two cents, Robert "khuxkm" Miles [1]: https://tildegit.org/assets/allowed_domains.txt
On 10/25/2021 4:43 PM, khuxkm@tilde.team wrote: > (I forgot to reply all so I'm sending this to the ML. Sorry for the double email Stephane!) > > October 24, 2021 5:31 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <stephane@sources.org> wrote: > >> Last time I checked, Tilde services were closed, you needed an >> approbation to get in. > > Not true, all you need is an account on a tilde which is on our allowed domains list[1]. > Furthermore, if you don't want to get a tilde account, you can email ben (ben AT tilde DOT team) > with your desired username and a little about yourself, and he'll manually create the account for > you. (I'd also be willing to help with that if we needed to, but I don't know what I would need to > do to make accounts manually.) > > Just my two cents, > Robert "khuxkm" Miles > > [1]: https://tildegit.org/assets/allowed_domains.txt > Hi khuxkm, it is nice to see you on this list. Yeah, tildegit only requires that an account on a tilde on the domains list. It is very nice that accounts can be created manually if someone signing up were to ask ben or another tildegit admin, I suppose.
---