On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 08:45:50PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/21/24 15:54, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > > > > The Debian archive itself is a VCS, so git-maintained packaging is also a > > > duplication, and keeping the official VCS and git synchronized is causing > > > additional work for developers, which is why people are opposed to having it > > > mandated. > > > The Debian archive itself is a *bad* and *poor* VCS. It should be obvious > > in which areas it's poor, and it's bad e.g. because force pushes are > > enabled, the history is periodically truncated (though there is no easy > > way to get it anyway) etc. > > All of these things are *also* explicit features. We need a way to unpublish > things, and mirrors only want to keep a shallow subset. We don't have a way to unpublish things, and force pushes I meant are uploading things without including all previous changes, like all those NMUs silently not included in the next maintainer uploads. But, sure, some of the problems we have are explicitly features. > Representing the Debian archive in git would probably look like a massive > amount of submodules, because that's the only way to represent state across > multiple projects without extending it Sorry? I don't understand what you would use submodules for. Unless you meant literally mapping archive-as-VCS to a single literal VCS repo? -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature