We’re announcing a new technical initiative: cleaning up the stacks-network Github repository. We’d love the community’s feedback!
tl;dr - We will keep active repositories (such as stacks-blockchain) in stacks-network. Over the next several days older, non-maintained, or otherwise defunct (what we’ll call “legacy”) repos will be moved to a new repository, which we have named stacks-archive.
I’ve also created stacks-cybersecurity for security-related items; feel free to star that as I add material over the coming months.
If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to reach out to me or another official Stacks Foundation team member.
Thanks,
-Keewenaw
Head of Security, Stacks Foundation
================
Goals:
Move all non-blockchain specific repos to a different repo.
Archive all legacy repos in a different repo.
Create a cleaner code footprint.
Make it more accessible for new contributors to pick an area to participate and contribute in.
General security and DevOps improvements.
General Approach:
Catalog usage of known repos.
Move all documentation/organizational docs to a single repo.
Move all legacy repos and move to the new archival repo stacks-archive
Move any remaining non-blockchain or -adjacent repos to an appropriate place on Github.
Make it more accessible for new contributors to pick an area to participate and contribute in.
This is a great goal.
Move all documentation/organizational docs to a single repo.
This is also great and I’d suggest we use stacks-network/stacks for this. That repo already has some contributors and people watching changes on it etc.
Move all non-blockchain specific repos to a different repo.
RE this first point I want to make is about L2 framing vs a blockchain (using implying L1). Here is a good Github issue/discussion I started about it and there seems to be support to use the name stacks-core for the reference implementation.
Secondly, and more importantly, I think that a repo should exist on stacks-network org if it’s useful to a lot of developers (vs if it is directly related to stacks-core or not). Using the criteria that (a) is a repo actively developed and (b) is it useful to devs in the ecosystem and (c) not owned by any single entity for their business use can be a potential test to see if a repo should be on stacks-network org.
I’m curious to hear what other people think. I’d personally want to avoid fragmentation where new devs see only a few active repos under stacks-org. I’d love to hear from other folks – thanks!
To your second point, i think that’s a place we’d like to get to - but the first step is cleaning up what we currently have in the org.
to compile the list that @Keewenaw shared, we considered both a) and b), but i can see a path to adding c) in the near future.
Following up - since this was announced a week ago and we haven’t heard any concerns about not moving any specific repo, we’ll start doing the needful and moving repositories out of the stacks-network org, and into the stacks-archive in the coming days.
if you notice any issues, please let us know here or in discord.