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

[Gabriel Ravier]

On 2/11/26 11:11 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Thanks, these were useful questions.
>
> I hope the answers bring more clarity.
>
> On Feb  9, 2026, Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> would this be SaaSS in either the
>> "required for architecture support" or the "courtesy" scenarios ?
> The answer to this is question is a little fuzzy.  The more we want,
> expect and depend on those results, and the more disruptive not having
> them would be to our workflows, the clearer it is that it is our
> computing in disguise after all, and so the more it is SaaSS.
>
> I wish we wouldn't try to explore the exact boundary to figure out just
> how much we can afford to give up of our freedom.  That would be an
> unfortunate outcome for this conversation.  I wish we'd instead strive
> to do our computing in freedom, i.e., under our own control.
>

My objective certainly isn't to find where the boundary is, then demand 
the glibc project jump up to right below that boundary and say "it's all 
technically OK we're right below the boundary" - it is rather more that 
I was uncertain what some of the specific standards here were, and how 
they should be evaluated (e.g. the specific ways some certain things 
would have to be altered to stop being SaaSS, or not altered so as to 
not become SaaSS). In a way, the idea is to know where the boundary is, 
so that we know where the boundary isn't (it is particularly useful to 
know how far some given things are from it, since it lets us know how 
much effort/resources need be expended to get rid of SaaSS, for instance).