forge vs gitolite (Re: CTI - Making a decision for glibc.)

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb  7, 2026, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@elastic.org> wrote:

>> > We have buildbots for post-commit CI on Sourceware.
>> 
>> Ugh.  That sucks.  Thanks for bringing this problem to my attention!
>> Can we please make it a priority to fix this?

> ?

AFAICT it's SaaSS, Service as a Software Substitute.  It's software that
does our computing, and that should thus be running under our control,
but that is instead operated by someone else who controls it and runs it
on our behalf.

SaaSS is even more of a software freedom problem than relying on nonfree
software.

I'm not surprised that the LF doesn't see a problem there, or even that
it wants to promote that kind of practice, but I'd be very surprised if
SFC didn't see a problem in that sort of practice.


>> Could we possibly run it on a machine under our control?  Even a rented
>> virtual machine would do.  [...]

> Who is the "us" you are talking about?

The GNU libc collective, within its governance structure.  That
governance structure should control our collective computing, instead of
having it done by third parties.

> Sourceware buildbots are
> operated by a bunch of community member donors.

Are these the post-commit CI?  The arrangement is not clear to me.  I
may need a lot more detail to understand what's going on, as in who
controls what.

The quote at the top says those are "on Sourceware", which I take it as
meaning "under Sourceware control".  Sourceware is a separate
organization, with a separate governance structure, so if it does our
computing for us, that's SaaSS, and that's a freedom problem.

Using Sourceware services is acceptable for hosting of non-SaaSS
(publishing, mediation of communication, because those are not *our*
computing), but not at all fine for SaaSS.

Maybe knowing more details about how this is arranged will lead to a
conclusion that this case is not SaaSS, after all, or point at other
ways to make it non-SaaSS.


>> Now, CI specifically doesn't even have to be our own computing.

> I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is,

Sourceware, a separate entity, seems to be doing our computing under its
control, instead of our doing our computing under our control.


> how you believe this paragraph is aspirational,

It really isn't.  It's suggests a fallback workaround position in case
the ideal of doing all of the computing that we might wish autonomously
can't be achieved in the short term.


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/
Free Software Activist     FSFLA co-founder     GNU Toolchain Engineer
Learn the truth about Richard Stallman at https://stallmansupport.org/