bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> writes:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 21:44:04 +1100 Yuchen wrote:Do you mean the reason for B0 and B2 failing are no longer true?i dont know - i have not reviewed codeberg - it was a very long review and was difficult to find where/how B0 or B2 were resolved - i found one post, which indicates that B0 wasresolved, and that the wiki checklist was updated to reflect thathttps://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-07/msg00016.html
That was about C0, not B0/B2, see the context of that message e.g. <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/2021-06/msg00042.html>
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 21:44:04 +1100 Yuchen wrote:I don't see changes in this, at least some scripts at codeberg.org are still blocked by librejs.the wiki checklist still indicates that it is failing though; so there is conflicting information between the wiki and the mailing list
B0 is still failing, C0 was no longer failing and the wiki was updated accordingly:
<https://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=Codeberg&diff=prev&oldid=65241>
what i8 remember, is that the codeberg team was working to satisfy the 'B' criteria; and i presented it as such, assuming that those changes were relatively simple, and could be accomplished in the short time while waiting for final approval now that the review was accepted and ready to publish, it is not obvious that B0 and B2 were ever satisfied as expected - so i suppose that codeberg should enter the list at the 'C' level, rather than the 'B' level as proposed if someone can demonstrate otherwise, then the wiki should be updated - i would want to do that now; to remove this confusion for the future
-- Best, Yuchen PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040 4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0 <https://ypei.me/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature