Re: Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "David" == David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:

    David> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
    >>>>>>> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
    >> 
    >> 
    Jonas> I think there is a general consensus on working in teams, and
    Jonas> therefore using git repos belonging to teams - but not to use
    Jonas> that one giant "team" called "debian".
    >> 
    >> What would you recommend people do if they have a package that
    >> doesn't fit into an existing team.
    >> 
    >> --Sam

    David> One option is putting them in their own user namespace. This
    David> is generally my preferred option for packages that are not
    David> maintained as part of a team. I think the option of merge
    David> requests reduces the need to give out direct push access.

I tried to cover the disadvantages of this in the original mail:

* Works poorly when maintainership changes

* Works poorly when account status changes

I am sure you're aware of these, but I want to make sure they are on the
table.
And obviously, the debian group has disadvantages:

* works poorly if you don't want everyone having push access

  * Because you don't want to be that open with your package

  * Because you are mirroring or something where having push access will
    break things

There are a number of ways forward:

1) Add a recommendation for people who don't want to give push access to
all developers.  Personal namespaces is the only option I've seen so
far.

2) Only recommend personal namespaces and never debian

3) Note both options but not make a recommendation between them

4) Something along the lines of the current text; Jonas has explicitly
disagreed with this approach

5) Make no recommendations in this space

While I've been monitoring a lot of discussions, this issue is one where
we'd need significantly more feedback than we've received so far for me
to call a consensus.

--Sam