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

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@debian.org>]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:43:06PM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Le ven. 3 févr. 2023 à 18:27, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@debian.org> a écrit :
> 
> > 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)
> >
> 
> Could this remark also address the fact that in most cases,
> Vcs-Git == Vcs-Browser,
> and thus Vcs-Browser is irrelevant ?

I do agree that it is silly to have to have to set nearly the same header for
the 90% of packages that are on salsa. 

It does seem like an orthogonal issue and perhaps best kept separate - there
are quite a few Vcs-Git headers set to something other than salsa.debian.org or
github.com, which means that Vcs-Browser isn't necessarily always predictable
even for Vcs-Git headers.

Jelmer