where to maintain DEP8^W autopkgtest spec now
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack at debian.org> writes:
> I totally agree with you, Antonio. And I do *not* mean to imply that
> moving the spec under the debian-policy umbrella equates to *freezing*
> the spec. For me it is just an attempt to have the spec in a place that
> is more tool-neutral, and where we can actually edit stuff (once a DEP
> gets ACCEPTED, it ceases to be such a place).
> But you're right that we should better clarify what would be the editing
> process for sub-policies that get integrated into the debian-policy
> package.
> Can someone, maybe with past experience on other sub-policies (e.g. the
> perl one), comment on what are the recommended work-flows for
> maintaining sub-policies under the debian-policy umbrella?
I'm personally fairly unhappy with the degree to which things tend to
stagnate in Policy-land. In the past, adopted sub-policies have used the
same criteria as Policy itself, but I think it would be very interesting
as an experiment to adopt a sub-policy, give the relevant maintainers
direct commit access to the Policy repository, and let them maintain it
however they see fit.
I think it would be good for Debian if, in the long run, all the various
sub-policies were collected together in one place. (I'm thinking here of
the Python policy, the Emacs policy, and so forth.) However, I don't
think they should all use the same editing criteria, and I think that's
been a barrier in achieving this goal. I'd rather see there be dedicated
maintenance teams for the sub-policies that use the criteria that makes
sense for their area of expertise, all of whom have direct Git commit
access to the Policy repository for that purpose.
--
Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: