Bug#1030382: encourage Vcs-Git over other Vcs-* headers
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:59:21PM +0000, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 02:15:42PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri 03 Feb 2023 at 05:24PM GMT, 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)
> >
> > This strikes me as a matter for devref not Policy?
>
> I've created a PR for devref - https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/-/merge_requests/41
>
> Are you saying that it doesn't belong in policy because it'd be a
> recommendation rather than a must/should (at this point?), or because it's more about the
> workflow inside of Debian than package contents?
Yes this is about the workflow and not the package, and so far we have let developpers pick
whatever workflows suit them.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: