forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (25 Apr 2021 18:51 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Arthur A. Gleckler (25 Apr 2021 18:56 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (25 Apr 2021 19:27 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 19:43 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (25 Apr 2021 19:59 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 20:36 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 21:27 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (26 Apr 2021 07:36 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 07:57 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (26 Apr 2021 07:29 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (21 May 2021 09:52 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (01 Aug 2021 07:25 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Vasilij Schneidermann (01 Aug 2021 07:56 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche (02 Aug 2021 06:34 UTC)
Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Lassi Kortela (06 Aug 2021 10:28 UTC)

Re: forge.scheme.org or sourcehut.scheme.org Amirouche 02 Aug 2021 06:33 UTC

On 2021-08-01 09:56, Vasilij Schneidermann wrote:
> Hello Amirouche,
>
>> Last but not least, the primary maintainer, Drew Devault, told me that
>> they
>> are moving toward a only-Go implementation based on graphql, which is
>> a
>> no-go as far as I concerned.
>
> Why would you say that? Go would make it a lot easier to run the
> binaries because they are static and tend to be self-contained. Or do
> you disagree with graphql as basis for APIs? How is that related to
> using sr.ht for hosting and CI?

I believe moving to Go will lead to another cycle of fine-tuning /
bug-fixing. That is, it will remain unstable.

>
> Vasilij

--
Amirouche ~ https://hyper.dev