On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 04:11:02AM +0900, Simon Richter 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. I don't follow this conclusion because the premise "the Debian archive itself is a VCS" is as right or wrong as the statements "earth is clock" or an "ocean is a washing machine". Or, to put it differently, "vi $file ; cp $file $file.bak ; vi $file" is also a VCS, but an even poorer one than the Debian archive. Just because something has some VCS like properties it doesn't make it a VCS as in the sense as people understand it in 2024. IMO (very few) people object using a(n official) VCS is because it would change their workflows and/or because they believe their needs are more important than our needs. And saying "the Debian archive is a VCS and that causes conflicts with another VCS" is a red herring at best, because as dak+git or dak+vim+copy shows (or gosh, using different git repos) that using several VCS is possible and done by millions daily. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ It's not climate change nor climate crisis, it's climate disaster.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature