emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "If you're still seeing problems, please reopen." [Was: bug#25148:]


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: "If you're still seeing problems, please reopen." [Was: bug#25148:]
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:26:15 +0200

> From: João Távora <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:30:01 +0000
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>, 
>       emacs-devel <address@hidden>, Richard Stallman <address@hidden>, Dmitry 
> Gutov <address@hidden>
> 
> > which will make it be hosted on
> > the same machine where our upstream repository lives.  And then who's
> > to say that such branches pushed into our GitLab are not part of
> > Emacs, like all the scratch branches you and others push now?
> 
> Is that question really important?

Yes.  Because by hosting code that violates some copyright we could
make GNU liable.  Or if someone, by mistake or malice, pushes code
that is against the GNU policies, we could make it easy for enemies of
GNU to attack and discredit GNU.  Etc. etc.

> And why does it not apply to patches as potentially absurd or as
> harmful as those branches that are sitting in email bodies of the
> debbugs bug tracker and the archives of lists.gnu.org?

Because an email message is from someone who offers us code, wheres
code on our server is already on our server, in our repository, even
if it's a fork.  Thus, people who don't understand these
technicalities could easily be convinced that we "endorsed" that code.

> But what does that risk amount to, i.e. what are
> the consequences of someone making that mistake?

In our present chaotic world, the consequences might be dire.

And I really don't understand the need for trying to do it on
Savannah, when savannah.nongnu is a good compromise that solves this
problem.  Why should anyone care on what server is this tracker
hosted?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]