CTI - Making a decision for glibc.

[Andrew Pinski]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 9:34 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Pinski via Overseers:
>
> > Please dont.
> > The concern is more than foundations.
> > Sourceware has stepped up in ways that linux foundation it could not and
> > would not do without a new contract.
>
> While I appreciate what Sourceware has been doing and is doing for us,
> they just cannot implement some things, like turning off From: rewriting
> on mailing lists that are used for patch distribution.

LF IT won't be able to do it either. This is a problem that is NOT
solvable by switching providers. The problem is gmail has messed up
email lists.
See https://lwn.net/Articles/950567/ for an example.


>
> > An example has been integration with forge.
>
> The glibc project doesn't want to move to a forge at this time, so this
> is not really a concern for us?
>
> > Other examples is how handling of AI scrapping. Iirc there was nothing in
> > the contract with LF It for handling of that and still has not been
> > added.
>
> Didn't Sourceware disable https:// Git service at various points as part
> of this (first full disablement, then just the smart transport)?  We
> don't want people to direct to git:// as a stable replacement.
>
> (Without the smart transport, https:// clones are not usable from most
> of the world due to the RTT overhead.)
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>