Bug#1030382: encourage Vcs-Git over other Vcs-* headers

[Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:57:21PM +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:48:13PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:24:36PM +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > Package: debian-policy
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > > 
> > > Policy currently describes Vcs-* headers as something optional, but stops to
> > > endorse a particular Vcs.
> > > 
> > > At this point, it seems uncontroversial to encourage use of Vcs-Git
> > > specifically here. Apart from technical arguments, it's the vcs that the
> > > majority of packages in the archive uses - and thus will have the better
> > > tooling, less of a learning curve for other contributors, etc.
> > > 
> > > There are very few holdouts of other vcses in the archive. I count 62
> > > (ignoring those with an alioth URL):
> > > 
> > >  * 26 on Svn
> > >  * 3 on Cvs
> > >  * 4 on Hg (2 are hg/hg-buildpackage)
> > >  * 39 on bzr (half of these are actually bzr and related packages, which I maintain)
> > 
> > I do not quite understand. Surely the package need to use the VCS-* header
> > corresponding to the VCS used by the repository, whathever it is ? This is not
> > a matter of preference.
> 
> Sorry, to be clear I also meant encouraging the use of Git as a Vcs - rather than just
> of the Vcs-Git header.

Then maybe it would be a better fit for the developer reference than to policy ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.