Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa
On 7/23/19 7:31 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> packaging.
>
> 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
> seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
> consistency.
>
> 3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
Hi everyone!
After reading the thread, and discussing it during Debconf, I can see
clearly that point 1- doesn't seem controversial, and looks like widely
accepted, that 3- also looks like possible to pass if we allow the
possibility to use mirroring, but that 2- *is* controversial.
<layout discussion: food for thoughts>
tl;dr: Shall we standardize on 3 layouts? Or simply not vote on this?
I still believe that standardizing on Git layouts is important, though
maybe the timing for imposing one or another isn't appropriate,
especially considering that it looks like a lot of people are strongly
unsatisfied with our way to manage upstream patches, using Quilt or
otherwise.
As a consequence, I am withdrawing the proposal to mandate using the
"patches unapplied" layout, because it will frustrate a large amount of
people in our community. Though would it seem sensible to everyone if we
agree on 3 layouts, documented let's say in debian/control with a new
VcsGitLayout or something similar (please suggest a better way to
document this if this exists)? For example, if we had:
VcsLayout: patches-unapplied
or
VcsLayout: patches-applied
or
VcsLayout: debian-folder-only
will that cover enough cases? Is this even a good idea? Let's stay as
open to suggestions as possible in this thread. :)
Also, I've read about workflows, when we're really talking about layout.
Please remove "gbp" out of this discussion, it's irrelevant. I know it's
hard to focus because the layout are directly driving the workflows, but
let's please try!
Finally, is there here a consensus that we should simply not vote on
this at all? Possibly, this also could be a good outcome, I'm not sure
about this yet, and I'm looking forward reading answers on this.
</layout discussion: food for thoughts>
Last, you've probably noticed that I haven't proposed a text for this
GR. This is on purpose, as I want to give it a few weeks for the
conversation to drive the way to write this text. Maybe the whole
summer, so we can vote in September. I've decided to open this
discussion so we can have face-to-face conversation at Debconf, but I
also keep in mind that some of us are probably in holidays.
I'm also still seeking for volunteers to help me write this GR text once
we have finished discussing all of this, and reading everyone's opinion.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: