[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Proposal for new source format

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: [RFC] Proposal for new source format"):
> Sorry, I didn't phrase my suggestion carefully.  I was assuming that we
> will continue to expect maintainers to accept patches in the BTS, but
> that if they *prefer* something else, they could document that in
> README.source.
> Someone making a large number of changes could just choose to submit
> them all as patches to the BTS, due to the high cost of checking
> README.source -- I'm sure maintainers would understand this.

Well, that's fair enough as far as it goes.  But I think we could do

It would be possible to imagine some service that works like this:

 * NMUer does dgit clone, makes changes, does tag2upload with some
   option (ie a parseable note in the git tag) to say "automatically
   do the NMU things"

 * tag2upload service, or some related service:
    - determines that the maintainer is using a dgit-compatible git
      workflow, by looking at the tags, and looks at some in-dsc
      metadata to find the maintainer's repo
    - determines that the maintainer is using salsa or launchpad,
      converts the NMU to the maintainer branch's format, and
      submits an MR
    - files a Debian bug referencing the MR
    - if the preconditions are not satisfied, sends a traditional
      debdiff by email to the BTS instead

 * Maintainer looks at the MR.  (If discussion is needed they do it in
   the bug [1].)  Maintainer merges the branch to master.

 * git hosting service autocloses the MR.  Metadata gateway service
   marks the Debian bug pending.

I think this would give us most of the best of the various possible
worlds.  (You could also do most of this without the actual upload of
course.  Such an canonical-view-to-maintainer-MR gateway would already
be possible, and would work when the maintainer used dgit.)


[1] IMO bugs are better for this because they provide a less bitty
conversational structure and are archived and published more usefully.
But it would be possible to handle this via the hosting system MR
conversation instead, or maybe mirror the conversation.

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: