My gut feeling is that we're already past the point where maintaining the list by hand is workable: in the last week or two, we've added a dozen new sources and we're going to keep adding more (at a slower pace, but probably more on an "on the fly" basis).

I'm also not quite sure where to draw the line between "platform software supported for archival" (e.g. gitlab, bitbucket, PyPI archives, Debian archives, CGit) and "currently archived hosting platforms" (e.g. gitlab.com, framagit, bitbucket.org, debian.org, kernel.org, gnu.org). Showing the distinction will probably make more sense when/if we decide to tackle T1538.

For the question of showing from which actual hosters we archive code, I think we can have a middle ground where we curate a list of "prominent" sources (which we could hard-code in a first iteration, then programmatically determine by just taking the top N sources after solving T1266), kept on top of the section, and then pick a random sample of other origins to show on a second line below.

In T1870#34563, @olasd wrote:

My gut feeling is that we're already past the point where maintaining the list by hand is workable

I concur.

I'm also not quite sure where to draw the line between "platform software supported for archival" (e.g. gitlab, bitbucket, PyPI archives, Debian archives, CGit) and "currently archived hosting platforms" (e.g. gitlab.com, framagit, bitbucket.org, debian.org, kernel.org, gnu.org). Showing the distinction will probably make more sense when/if we decide to tackle T1538.

Yeah, that too.

As a way forward, let me note down here a proposal (by @vlorentz on IRC) which I quite like and would allow us to make progress on this task without having to go all the way down this rabbit hole:

• create a new page, e.g., archive.s.o/coverage that is automatically generated by the web app and contains:
  • a table of all the listers currently in production, one per row
  • for each lister we give the lister type (e.g., gitlab) and the instance URL (e.g. https://gitlab.com)
  • rows are grouped by lister type, so that all, say, gitlab listers come together
  • we add a section heading for each group of listers of the same type, where we can have
    • the lister type logo (this information should hence be made machine-readable somewhere)
    • a anchor that we can link to, e.g., archive.s.o/coverage/gitlab
• the current list of logos on archive.s.o remains for now curated by hand, and
  • for logos of listers that do appear in the table, we make them link to the corresponding archive.s.o/coverage anchors, so that one can easily access the list of all instances of a given lister

This way we can still have "exceptions" on the main archive.s.o page (e.g., HAL) but still progress toward a more automated solution.