On 05/17/2013 01:20 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > This came up recently on debian-python. It's a very long thread, but the > basic outcome was that, while quite a few people wanted to move away from > svn, there was very little consensus on which VCS to migrate to, whether to > include full source tarballs, and how to do any migration. It was suggested > that if someone was willing to put the time in to drive a migration, that > might be OK, but by then the discussion had pretty much killed all > enthusiasm for it. > > My memory is that there was also disagreement over whether the team could > live with packages split across two difference VCSs. Some people argued > that the teams packages should be unified, others that a migration would be > easier if it didn't need to be all-at-once. Some other packaging teams > (e.g. Games) do have packages in two VCSs. > > Here's the start of that thread, if you've got time to read through it all: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2013/02/msg00032.html thanks for the link. I am willing to drive the migration for python-apps (PAPT); i will target moving all of the packages to git, and i will include upstream tarballs. I will use tools and scripts that i will document and i will document my work so that other python-related teams can take advantage of my effort. If the PAPT team wants to bless this effort by creating a tree of git repositories that i can stage this transition into, that is fine by me. If not, i will stage these transitions directly into the collab-maint tree of git repos (as i have already done with trac), and then people can decide whether they want to move them into some hypothetical PAPT tree of git repos whenever the PAPT team gets around to making that decision. Which would folks prefer? --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature