Re: Bikeshedding
Hi Zack
On 2019/03/31 09:39, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> And less "I'm the package maintainer, this is my castle, go away" and
>> more "This is how the majority does it, you follow, the benefit of it
>> being one way, not a dozen different, outweight some personal
>> preferences".
>
> Let's cut to the chase of this.
>
> Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git on salsa and
> every Debian Developer with upload rights to the archive should have
> commit/push right to every packaging repository on salsa.
>
> DPL candidates: do you agree with this statement?
In general, I think so. I'm unsure about the first "must" though, I tend
to like that we're not so rigid and inflexible in our policies that we
can't cater for a few exceptions. For example, I could understand that
packagers of a VCS system would want to host their work in such a VCS,
for example...
"""
$ debcheckout -d bzr
type bzr
url https://code.launchpad.net/~debian-bazaar/debian/sid/bzr/unstable
"""
Having said that, all the other major VCS systems already seem to be
either in salsa or in another git repository.
I'm not fundamentally against that being a "must", but we should just be
aware that there might be some use cases that we'll end up sacrificing
in order to make such a unification of source control hosting possible.
> If so, what will be your approach to make this a reality?
Well, if we'd want to enforce this, it would ultimately have to get into
policy somehow.
DEP14 (https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/) predates salsa so
doesn't mention it, but that already had quite a lot of thought go into
it, and if that would be expanded to include bits about salsa hosting,
then you get what you mentioned above plus the workflow parts from below
(which are already used on salsa by a number of projects).
I also do think that "every Debian package /should/ be maintained in Git
on salsa" would be easier to accept project-wide than "every Debian
package /must/ be maintained in Git on salsa". I would perhaps ask the
proposer of such a statement to consider whether it might be worth while
taking the smaller step first, and then in the future revisit it to
change it to the stronger statement when the community at large have had
more time to adapt.
> (I'm putting on the side, on purpose, the problem of different workflows
> that Joerg has highlighted. Not because it's not a real problem, but
> because I think it's a distraction to discussing/fixing the more
> substantial problem of access rights and package ownership.)
ack.
-Jonathan
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Reply to: