Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

[Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org>]

Hi all

It seams to me reading this thread that there are those who would like
to mandate the use of a given VCS on a particular host.

The primary advantages being that it makes CI so much simpler, and
having a uniform workflow makes it easier for those not maintaining a
given package to view and make changes (occasionally distribution wide).

On the other hand there is also those who would rather not see this
become mandatory.  Various reasons have been given, but if I have
understood correctly they boil down to a few classes namely; doesn't
fit our model, a lot or work to change for few if any perceived benefit,
principled belief that maintainer is free to maintain however
they see fit.

Personally I see no reason to mandate such a change, with policy only
recommending / preferring the proposed changes. Furthermore I accept
that the policy should strongly recommend (i.e. require an explanation
why not) for NEW packages.

Clearly, maintained packages that do not match the proposed
new VCS & Layout will be harder &/OR require additional effort from
people that only understand this new work flow to to work on.  However
these packages are being maintained by people that DO understand the
existing workflows etc.  Sure such packages may not 'benefit' from some
of the CI testing that *may* get produced or some project wide automated
changes - these tasks *may* still need to be done by the existing
maintainers - that is a 'cost' of choosing not to standardise on on the
proposed new system.

Of cause should the package in question no longer be maintained by the
exiting maintainer/team then whoever picks up the package afterwards
would be free to move to the new setup as they see fit - potentially
understanding better the reason that the previous maintainer chose not
to adopt the new setup along the way :-)


/Andy