On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:40:33PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 10:28:03 +0000, Iain Lane wrote: > > Since the discussions on the bug I've learned a > > bit more about the upstream metadata spec > > https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata > > I think a slight gap there is that the "Repository:" field is just a > > URL: it's not really enough information to tell if it's a git repository > > we could add a remote for. To solve that I'm proposing a new > > "Repository-Type" field, which would have values like "git, svn, hg, > > ...". Opinions? > > In the perl team we just check if it's a git repo and continue from > there: > if ! GIT_ASKPASS=/bin/true git ls-remote "$REPOURL" >/dev/null 2>&1; then > > Having to add another field to thousands of files doesn't sound too > appealing to me (especially as at least in our case there are hardly > any non-git upstream repos involved). +1 It would be nice to not fail hard if the upstream repository turns out to not be a Git repository, but some other kind of vcs (in which case you presumably just want to ignore it?). Looking forward to seeing these improvements in gbp! Cheers, Jelmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature