Meeting Minutes - Office Hours for CTI - 2026-08-28

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2026, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> While I do think this is the best way, don't you see that it also applies to
> the changes on the table?  In particular, *starting* a hosting switch by
> moving -- not mirroring -- the two most critical services (git and email),
> which are also the two services most difficult to move, and most difficult
> to roll back if something goes wrong, strikes me as incredibly unwise,
> regardless of all other considerations.

I've argued for a design involving a separate DNS name for each (project, 
service pair), which makes subsequent moves / rollback much more 
straightforward than with everything using the single name 
"sourceware.org".

Email also supports redirection.  http redirection works for https:// git 
access and I don't think the new arrangements are intended to support 
insecure git:// at all.

> > rather than just happening 
> > because one community member thought a change was a good idea and one 
> > hosting person then implemented it, possibly disrupting things for other 
> > people, deviating from a previous community consensus or introducing a 
> > security vulnerability.
> 
> I feel like you and Alexandre are imagining different things.  Are you aware
> of changes made on a "sure why not, sounds like a good idea to me" basis
> *to critical production services specifically*, rather than more experimental
> things like the patch tracker and the wiki?

There was at least one such past change to Bugzilla configuration (from 
memory, at a time when one of Sourceware Bugzilla and GCC Bugzilla had 
fully restricted account creation and the other allowed account creation 
except from a blacklist of forbidden domains, someone saw the difference, 
guessed it was accidental and made both follow the more restrictive 
configuration, when actually the less restrictive one had been a 
deliberate choice).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
josmyers@redhat.com