Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services
Riku Voipio writes ("Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services"):
> OTOH I think the problem is not that "we don't have github workflow"
> but "every maintainer invents their own workflow".
The problem isn't the lack of agreement on git workflow. The world in
general doesn't have agreement on git workflow, but still manages to
have a fairly-uniform interface to external contributors. Well, two
"skins" if you will over the same contributors workflow: 1. git clone
something 2. make your changes as git commits that seem to make sense
3(a) git-format-patch && git-send-email or 3(b) git push and press the
"request pull" button in some web UI.
The problems are:
1. There is^W was (in general, and in practice in many if not most
cases) nothing you can git clone, to get the source of a Debian
package.
2. There is no formal and established mechanism for offering your
contribution. (No, sending the output of `git-request-pull' to
the BTS is not a "formal and established mechanism.)
dgit solves the first problem. Something like a gitlab.d.o could
solve the second.
> We need to question if not having package sources in git is
> still useful option
I agree and this is why I wrote dgit. Please try it out.
> - or even if source package counts a preferred
> form for modification.
I agree.
> At least "apt-get source" tells me every how
> I should probably use git instead...
apt-get source's suggestion to use the vcs-git repository is (in
general, and in practice in many if not most cases) a lie.
The vcs-git repository:
* May be out of date compared to the archive
* Might contain an arbtrarily weird git tree or git history
* Usually contains a patches-unapplied tree which is unsuitable
unless you are a Debian expert (see my posts on this passim)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: