Quoting Bernd Zeimetz (2024-05-21 00:54:07) > On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 23:16 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues > wrote: > > Quoting Andreas Tille (2024-04-10 22:44:25) > > > > I do understand the argument that lots of different workflows > > > > adds > > > > friction. But I'm just still using what used to be _the_ standard > > > > one > > > > (insofar as we ever had such a thing). Putting everything in > > > > salsa/git > > > > doesn't standardise workflows in itself. I think Ian/Sean > > > > identified 12 > > > > different git-based methods in their dgit review. > > > > > > I agree that different workflows are not helpful. We have DEP14[1] > > > ... but we have no efficient processes to > > > a) accept DEPs > > > b) dedicate to accepted DEPs > > > > or teach gbp about DEP14. See this git-buildpackage bug from *six* > > years ago: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829444 > > DEP14 is a candidate, I can't see that there was any consensus to accept it. > Just because there is a DEP there is no need to implement it without having > any consensus on it. the current gbp defaults were also implemented without any consensus on them, so in that regard, embracing DEP14 would not make the situation worse. What is improved by DEP14 is that in contrast to the current gbp defaults, it is backed up by a write-up of advice, best-practices and recommendations. We should have more of these write-ups for the things we do. This would also make it easier for new contributors to get into Debian. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature