Re: Genesis of the git.d.o/gitlab.d.o confusion (Was: Next steps for gitlab.debian)
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:46:56PM +0000, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Let me rephrase, then: can we have a plan that addresses alioth / git /
> gitolite / gitlab / stuff rather than standing up yet another SCM/PM tool
> because it's shiny?
>
> This has more to do with delivering sustainable services while reducing the
> overhead / technical debt.
I think Perfect is the enemy of Good, here. Standing up a new shiny service
seems to be almost a Herculean task as it is; consolidating, having a joined-up
vision, all that stuff is, I think, quite impossible for us. I'd rather not
scare away people like Pirate who are prepared to channel their inner Hercules
and provide (another) useful service by demanding they do something even harder.
Frankly I'd love it if cdbs went away, everyone used git for Debian packages,
we all used dh, we all stuck to one agreed git-for-debian wrapper (or none),
pts.qa was finally removed and tracker linked from packages.d.o; and a whole
bunch of other things; but there is neither project consensus that this is what
we should do, nor the volunteers prepared to do it. The nature of the project
is loosely-coupled, some redundancy, lots of legacy cruft, and sadly more than
one way to do it.
--
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Reply to: