Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github
Alf Gaida <agaida@siduction.org> writes:
> Is it really so hard to understand? Github, Gitlab and other service are
> just tools. I don't care if they are free or non-free. No account, no
> participation. And if you had read the whole post - imho the best
> outcome woul be: No hosting of Debian packaging outside Debian
> infrastructure. Second thing i would prefer: Packaging has to use a VCS
> supported in the debian project. If it boils down to: We support only
> git in our infrastructure - fine.
There seems to be an obvious ordering issue here, namely that it's very
weird to insist on the first (which has been the topic of this thread)
before we insist on the second.
Right now, we don't require people use *any* special tool to maintain
their packages. They can just apt-get source, make changes with a text
editor, and then build a source package and upload. It's therefore very
weird, and kind of off-putting, to have people who start using Git be
suddenly subject to *more* constraints about how they do their work than
people who aren't using a VCS at all.
If we get to the point where everyone has to use Git, then it's logical
(if possibly still not what we want to do) to take a more opinionated
stance on where those Git repositories are replicated to. (And of course
the nice thing about Git is that you can easily put repositories in
multiple places.) But for as long as we're not willing to require people
use a VCS (which I think would be rather controversial), it doesn't make
sense to me to have strong opinions about where the Git repository is if
they use one.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: