Re: Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa
On September 10, 2019 1:26:35 AM UTC, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "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.
I don't think your alleged works poorly for using your own namespace are real problems. Since git has no single central repository moving is as simple as a clone and then push it to the new location. If there are multiple instances of a package on salsa (which can happen for any number of reasons) the "official" one is the one the Vcs-* point to.
For other VCS I think those would be valid concerns, but for git they can be trivially avoided.
Scott K
Reply to: