Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from tarballs to git [and 1 more messages]
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:26:32PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> thanks for the pointer, but I don't see the string debcheckout in that
> message and vcs-git only once, where you write:
>
> ---begin quote---
>
> >From these we can conclude:
>
> * Debian should provide source code as git branches which:
> - can be built using a standard set of runes
> - will produce the same binaries as official Debian ones
> - can be reliably located
> - can be easily modified (using standard git commands)
> - contain the git histories we are actually using ourselves
>
> There is only one way to do this. It is `dgit push[-source]'.
>
> Vcs-Git and Salsa do not provide this.
>
> ---end quote---
>
> and I'm not sure I agree this is true, to me Vcs-Git and Salsa do provide all
> of this, *if* Vcs-Git is set.
>
> And if it's not set, it's either because the package is not in git or because
> d/control is lacking information, aka the package is buggy.
I think the thing you're missing is Ian's "can be reliably located"
point. As you say, debcheckout works if those conditions are met, but
they're very often not met. Given how long debcheckout and Vcs-Git have
been around, it seems a reasonable conclusion that they're unlikely to
reach 100% any time soon (and there's the long-standing problem with
stale metadata in stable releases and so on that means it isn't even a
ratchet, and won't be unless some as-yet-unfinished work to make it be
an archive override or similar happens instead). Without wishing to
speak for Ian, I think this is what he's abbreviating as "do not provide
this".
By contrast, "dgit clone" works regardless of whether these conditions
are met, although it results in a better git history if the maintainer
used "dgit push" or "dgit push-source". That does seem like an
important distinction.
> So, IOW, I can see problems with individual packages here but not with the
> general workflow/tool of using vcs-git: and debcheckout.
>
> (or what am I missing?)
Maybe another way to look at it is that sometimes it makes more sense to
look at a problem systemically, including new tools, than by annotating
thousands of source packages one by one.
[FWIW: I recently started using "dgit push-source" for my uploads,
partly as a result of this thread although I'd been meaning to look into
it for ages. I've filed a couple of bugs and been confused about one or
two things that Ian has kindly helped me with, but by and large it's
been much more straightforward than I'd feared.]
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: