Re: Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
Scott> I don't think your alleged works poorly for using your own
Scott> namespace are real problems.
I would be a lot happier if your message was phrased in terms of
discussing which trade off you prefer.
It's clear from past discussion that people are concerned about these
issues.
I hear you as saying that you value other things more .
Scott> Since git has no single central
Scott> repository moving is as simple as a clone and then push it to
Scott> the new location. If there are multiple instances of a
Scott> package on salsa (which can happen for any number of reasons)
Scott> the "official" one is the one the Vcs-* point to.
I do believe this viewpoint has been considered in the discussion.
I don't have the counter-arguments at hand that have been made. So here
I'm responding with my own opinion rather than trying to make a call
based on past discussions.
* There's a lot in Gitlab beyond just the repo. Cloning a repo doesn't
clone merge requests, issues, wiki, pipelines, or artifacts among
others.
* It doesn't clone access control information
* There is a significant coordination/transition cost in changing names
even when no information is lost.
* There's value in stability of names. As an example does everyone look
at vcs-* out of unstable rather than say testing or stable?
I suspect you have considered most if not all of the above. I do hear
you as saying you value other things (which I think you have not yet
specified) more.
However, when you say that a concern is not valid, it's easy to read
that as saying that it is unreasonable to value fixing that concern. I
disagree strongly: I think a technical concern with trade offs on both
sides has been articulated.
--Sam
Reply to: