[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: Using git/collab-maint/PET for debian-mentors.



On 14 June 2010 02:20, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
>
>> As said on IRC, "cue anti-git flamage". In debian we use a multitude
>> of version control systems and we shouldn't impose choice of a
>> specific VCS nor force people to use a VCS. I personally maintain
>> packages in git, in SVN and in no VCS and prefer either no VCS or SVN
>> for teams.
>
> +1. There's no need to impose any particular VCS onto maintainers, even
> by default. It falls into the domain of allowing the maintainer to make
> their own decisions concerning their own work.

I was only suggesting what I would change in my particular workflow. I
don't see that I'm actually forcing anyone to use git - just saying
that I myself would nudge my mentees towards it. There are always
other sponsors.

Now, I'm open to the idea of SVN collab-maint as well. I spent
yesterday testing out Ansgar's version of PET, which supports both git
and SVN. There are some teams who make use of both (e.g. the
debian-games team, off the top of my head). We all have our individual
preferences.

I'm not particularly attached to the choice of VCS; but what I do
think is important is that people /do/ choose a VCS. If we do not
train prospective maintainers in the way that packages are actually
managed in most teams, then we are doing them a disservice; there will
be a steeper learning curve when they come to join a team. It will
also bring the same benefits to sponsored packages that it does
elsewhere, namely collaboration and a public record of the history,
and allow us to use the same tools to facilitate communication that we
have in other teams.

I believe Ansgar's got your other point about debian/changelog
covered; see how the Perl team works - the notes are never released,
and just serve as a place for keeping review notes in the same
repository as the code.

-- 
Tim Retout <tim@retout.co.uk>


Reply to: