Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository format"):
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:42:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hope you all won't mind too much that Sean and I have privileged our
> > own point of view, in the columns which contain value judgements, and
> > that we hope to retain that property of the page.
>
> I have no problem with you making a collation of the results from your
> point of view, but I would also like to see some more objective
> presentation of the survey results, even if in a more raw format.
>
> I saw in your survey a great potential for documenting the existing
> workflows, and I'm having a hard time getting that documentation from
> the current presentation.
The current presentation lists *branch formats* not *workflows*.
Everything in the current page other than the comments and best
practices columns is objective, but I see it as lower level than what
I think you are looking for.
The problem with listing workflows is for any specific branch format,
there are generally many tools, and many possible approaches to each
task. So while it is meaningful to talk about "my workflow", as a
collection of practices, it is not really possible to enumerate whole
workflows because everyone's personal workflow can differ in lots of
different respects. So the number of different whole-workflows is
unmanageable.
It would probably be useful for there to be a wiki page for each
branch format which has a section for each kind of task ("modify an
upstream file", "cherry pick a patch from upstream", "switch to new
upstream version") etc. and describes all the different ways of
achieving that taxk with that branch format.
That would be "less raw" but perhaps is what you actually want ? :-)
> I could suggest a descriptive wiki page for each style you identified,
> that then the users of that workflow can add to, and can serve as seeds
> for growing comprehensive documentation, if that is doable with the data
> you collected.
I can probably write a skeleton for most of these workflows. At
least, for the most popular ones. In many cases a good starting point
is probably a copy of a README.source from some package which actually
mentions it, or of course the dgit workflow tutorial manpage.
Maybe I should write one skeleton and then others can help ?
> The current big table might end up being simplified by having links to
> the detail pages.
I think the table needs still to exist but certainly links will help.
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: