Re: Bikeshedding
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2019/03/31 09:39, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >
> > 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...
>
[SNIP]
>
> 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.
>
Some of the packages I am involved in maintaining for Debian live in
upstream Git repositories (and I do my associated packaging work and
build packages for upload from those same repositories).
I suppose requiring that they be pull-mirrored to Salsa might make
sense, but requiring that the primary place of development for Debian
packaging actually be in Salsa would present an obstacle for some of my
current packages. Of course, that would mean that direct commits to the
Salsa project in such an instance would be problematic.
It would not surprise me if such a requirement were to cause some
upstream developers to give up on being involved in the Debian packaging
of their projects rather than deal with the hassle. Perhaps other
interested parties not involved with upstream might come along and
maintain these packages. In some cases that may be no great loss, but
there are enough upstream developers who are frustrated by Debian
policies it would seem to be better to be more accommodating, not less.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: