Re: Salsa - best thing in Debian in recent years? (Re: finally end single-person maintainership)
On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 14:13, Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
Yeah, I don't understand that either. It seems there is some
misunderstanding, the suggestion to use Salsa doesn't mean that the
current ftp servers are retired. It just means that Salsa is used for
sources, like it is already used in ~90% of the packages today as per
trends.debian.net. Now, whether someone wants to make tarballs and ftp
uploads happen transparently behind the curtain in a salsa-ci job or
something like that is really orthogonal to the idea that sources need
to be stored in git.
Reply to: