guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive


From: Ian Eure
Subject: Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:28:24 -0700
User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2


MSavoritias <email@msavoritias.me> writes:

On 3/17/24 13:53, paul wrote:
Hi all ,

thank you MSavoritias for bringing up points that many of us
share. It's clearly a tradeoff what to do about the past. For the future, as Christpher already stated, we need a serious solution that we can uphold as a free software project that does not alienate
users or contributors.

My opinion is that names are just wrong to be included, not only because of deadnames, but in general having a database with a column first_name and a column second_name is something only a 35 yrs old
white cis boy could have thought was a good idea to model the
spectrum of names humans use all over the world:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240317114846/https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
If we'd really need to identify contributors, and obviously Guix doesn't, we could use an UUID/machine readable identifier which can then be mapped to a displayed name. I believe git can already be
configured to do so.


giacomo


The uuid sounds like a very interesting solution indeed.

I wonder how easy it could be to add it to git.


This also seems like interesting territory to explore. The concerns raised around rewriting history have valid points; I think it’s impractical to rewrite history any time a change needs to happen, as that would be an ongoing source of disruption. But rewriting history *once*, to switch to a more general mechanism, seems like a reasonable trade to me. This also presents an opportunity: we could combine this with a default branch switch from master to main. A news entry left as the final commit in master could inform people of whatever steps may be needed to update (if that can’t be automated), and the main branch would contain the rewritten history.

It’s certainly not a perfect solution, but it seems pragmatic.

 — Ian



reply via email to

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