Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
Russ> Taking a step back, what I'm objecting to here is that I think
Russ> people are implicitly extending the definition of a source
Russ> package to include the VCS and implicitly assuming that we're
Russ> going to require people to use a VCS, but are not saying that
Russ> explicitly. (To be fair, Ian *is* saying that explicitly,
Russ> which I think makes everything clearer and more
Russ> straightforward, and lets us have an argument on the merits.
Russ> But I think the merits of a *requirement*, as opposed to a
Russ> recommendation, are weak as currently framed, without a bunch
Russ> more work to use standardized Git branch layouts and
Russ> facilities for global changes.)
Russ> We have to decide if the VCS used for maintaining a Debian
Russ> package is in scope for our policies and procedures or not.
Russ> Currently, it is not, so telling people what Git hosting
Russ> service they can use is out of scope in exactly the same way
Russ> that we don't tell people what text editor they use to change
Russ> Debian packaging files.
With my facilitator hat on.
What I'm hearing is that
* Today we're not making the VCS in scope for requirements, but we are
for recommendations. I don't know if that means it is in scope for
policies and procedures: often policies and procedures include
recommendations as well as requirements. I don't think anyone is
proposing that it be in scope for debian-policy as edited by the
policy editors.
* A number of people have talked about moving toward the VCS being
something that very much is in scope for requirements. Things like
mandating that work be done in Git and moving toward Git as the
preferred source format. I don't think Ian is alone in that eventual
goal. So I think it is fair to have that in your mind in these
discussions as something we might eventually do. I have not tried to
judge consensus on whether we're hoping to do that some day: it is not
immediate enough that judging that consensus would be valuable. I'll
note that some people like Scott have spoken against such a change.
So that might happen some day or it might not.
* I think the concern you raise about people just removing the vcs-*
fields is a blocking objection to forbidding non-free services. Which
is to say even if everyone were supporting the idea of forbidding
non-free services we'd need to have a better answer to that objection
than has been presented so far to have an informed consensus.
* But that objection ends up not mattering. We do not have a rough
consensus to forbid non-free services.
I'm putting together a blog post on Debian's history with non-free
software and services as part of making Debian.
To spoil that post a bit, here are some things I think people who are
unhappy about the use of Github and other non-free services can do:
* Work to understand why people are using Github. From my past
experience developing this sort of understanding works better when not
combined with strong persuasion. So given their strongly expressed
opinion, Thomas and Ian might not be the best choice for actually
interviewing Github users.
* If gaps are identified try and fill them. For example if more than
just Norbert are looking for a platform that is under control of a
wider group than Debian, perhaps the wider free software community
could benefit from some free Git service that has well established and
trusted governance.
* Work on documenting and simplifying bidirectional mirroring between
Salsa and Github. Provide tools to make that easy to setup.
Reply to: