Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes: >>3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository. >> >>I do believe #1 will pass easily, but that it's useless without #2, and >>there is some kind of uncertainty. For #3, I'm not even sure we should >>vote for that, I probably even prefer it not to be voted for myself, >>though what's annoying me is having to pull some packaging from non-free >>services such as Github, and this would make an end to it. > > There are genuinely good reasons for *not* using salsa. If the debian > packaging is directly included as part of the upstream git repo(s) > somewhere else, for example. It's a good thing to encourage salsa > usage (and I agree 100% with that for most things), but let's not > argue about making things mandatory please. If the problem one is trying to fix is people keeping the only copy on some proprietary service (which I think Thomas cited as motivation), perhaps it would be sufficient to suggest/recommend that people have an additional repo on salsa, and set up the hooks to ensure that every push gets immediately bounced onto salsa. I'd think that most people would have few objections to doing that, especially since it gives them the reassurance of a backup. Perhaps all that's really needed here is documentation to point people at that tells them how to do it easily easily. Of course there's still the question of how to deal with the metadata surrounding the repo, that might be stuck inside the proprietary service, so maybe that's not a complete fix. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature