On 2024-03-16 20:24:50 +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer who
wished to update their name:
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag
This is probably worth thinking about as Guix is in a similar situation
regarding publishing source code, and people potentially wanting to
change historical source code both in things Guix packages and Guix
itself.
Like Software Heritage, there's cryptographical implications for
rewriting the Git history and modifying source tarballs or nars that
contain source code.
We have 17TiB of compressed source code and built software stored for
bordeaux.guix.gnu.org now and we should probably work out how to handle
people asking for things to be removed or changed (for any and all
reasons).
It's probably worth working out our position on this in advance of
someone asking.
I would go a step further actually. Software Heritage is effectively
breaking CoC of Guix now.
Im not proposing removing all code or something obviously that connects to
Software Heritage, but there should be some social action we can take.
For example until the matter is resolved and Software Heritage implements a
process that respects trans rights Software Heritage should not be welcome
in Guix Spaces.
I did skim the articles and I did not see any details on what the technical
solution should be. SWH, among other things, archives the repositories and
allows fetching them by commit hash. At least as far as I know. Since that
commit hash does contain the author field, what is the proposed solution here to
change the author name without changing the commit hash?
While I am not a huge fan of the ability to map the "fake" author name over the
real one in the UI, what other solutions do you or the article author envision?
I am genuinely curious what you think can be done here.