Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa
On September 24, 2019 12:10:39 PM UTC, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> writes:
>
> Bernd> On 7/23/19 7:31 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using
> >> Git for packaging.
>
> Bernd> why is that a reason for a GR? its a question for the policy
> Bernd> editors.
>
>So, I agree that a GR would be the wrong approach if we thought that we
>could get to a consensus strong enough for the policy editors.
>
>I also agree that the policy editors have the technical authority to
>use
>a different (non-consensus) process and simply change policy. The
>policy editors have chosen not to do that sort of thing for a variety
>of
>reasons. Personally I think they have judged the needs of the project
>well. I think that the project would generally be unhappy if the
>policy
>editors simply used their best technical judgment to set policy rather
>than following a consensus process.
>
>It seems quite clear that the existing policy process would not come to
>consensus on any of Thomas's points.
>So, if we did want to get to a firm policy, I think a GR would be the
>right tool.
>
>I hear that you'd vote against such a GR.
>Just because you would vote against doesn't mean the GR is a wrong
>tool.
>
>Personally I think that aGR mandating Git on Salsa would fail.
>I'm trying in a consensus discussion to get to recommendations (rather
>than requirements) along the lines that Thomas was asking for.
>
>Thomas could try to take some of those recommendations to requirements
>with a GR if he chooses.
>
>For several of these recommendations if I cannot get consensus, I will
>call for a GR myself.
What do you think is important enough in this area that you would rather have people not contribute to Debian if they aren't willing to do it your way?
Scott K
Reply to: