Re: MIRA, BALL, or svn vs git
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:21:21PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> Well, we need to cross-check with Bio-Linux, still. But I have
> some confidence that the current SVN version is as good as the
> one in git. The two efforts now need to be merged.
Yes - and because I do not feel competent to do this merge I would like
to hand over the task of fixing the result in the task file to the one
who finished the merge. In any case we need to reflect the final
decision in our main source of information about prospective packages.
> I am notoriously bad at ITPs, I must admit. Google has become
> pretty good at spotting them with "<packagename> debian"
> but otherwise I will not find them. To have those linked from
> our Debian Med tasks page would certainly help.
I *hope* that all of them are recorded. I definitely track all ITPs
which are announced / copied on Debian Med list and as I said I follow
ITPs on debian-devel as close as popssible.
> >> I do not know how other teams organise themselves. I think that in the case
> >> of pkg-perl, their Package Entropy Tracker is not yet Git-aware. Another
> >> idea for the Google Summer of Code ?
> >>
> > As far as I know pkg-perl uses SVN explicitely.
> They have opened up towards git now.
> > I try to talk to them
> > (again) at DebConf about using UDD for their Entropy tracker which would
> > provide a unique interface for several things.
> >
> Well, I personally would hope for a true low-tech solution.
Yes. IMHO this low-tech solution could be implemented easily if there
would be an UDD interface. This would enable us to create a PET
interface for all Blends with one rush.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: