Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa
]] Thomas Goirand
> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> packaging.
Like Steve said, there are cases where git is not the right
tool. Recommending, fine. Mandating? No, I think that would be a bad
idea.
> 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.
It seems to be self-evident to you that we need consistency. It's not
at all clear to me that having a single layout to rule them all is the
right path forward. Why do you think we should just have a single
layout?
Beyond that, I think we should move away from patches-unapplied rather
than towards it. If you look at how normal software development is done
today, it's done with a git repo and not shuffling patches-as-files back
and forth.
I also think that having a single way of solving a problem will keep us
back from further evolution. Freedom to experiment is useful, and by
having this as a GR, the only way forward from this would be to have
another GR to change to something else. Binding ourselves that way
doesn't seem wise.
As for what you wrote downthread about possible to use 1.0 native
packages: yes,
> 3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
Again I think this proposal fails to account for corner cases, as an
example on top of what other have talked about: this could end up
affecting what can go into non-free. This would also increase coupling,
something we already have a problem with, and which is considered a bad
idea in software development.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: