Re: Defining GNOME software (finally)

[Allan Day <aday gnome org>]

Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro gnome org> wrote:
...
> > We've considered this question a bit more on the board side, and think
> > we can adjust the policy enough to allow some flexibility around the
> > GNOME Gitlab group. I think we would like to see some alignment
> > between the modulesets and the group, but it doesn't have to be
> > absolute and we could have a lazy retirement policy - so a modules
> > that are removed from the modulesets can stick around in the Gitlab
> > group for a good period of time. Does that sound like it could work?
>
> I'm not sure. We have ~400 repositories under GNOME/ but only ~50
> elements under core. So over 85% of our modules in GNOME/ are not in
> core. We could reduce that percentage by including elements from
> core-deps and sdk that are hosted under GNOME/, but there's still going
> to be very wide divergence. For there to be any sort of alignment, we'd
> need to remove the vast majority of software currently under GNOME/.

Yes, that's been taken into account. We're planning to set up a new
group where a lot of those modules will be able to live.

At this point it's probably best for us to share the plan in more
detail and get more feedback...

> The advantages of doing this would be unclear.

The "advantage" is following the legal recommendation we've had,
regarding how we define our software.

Thanks again!

Allan