Following up on the namespace question separately. To clarify: I'm not proposing any change. I'm mostly trying to learn and understand why some decisions were made and if the rationale still apply. Samuel Henrique <samueloph@debian.org> writes: > Downsides of keeping the packaging under debian/: > * Lack of the salsa's view of current opened MRs, as seen on > https://salsa.debian.org/groups/pkg-security-team/-/merge_requests. This is > the biggest downside in my opinion. Couldn't this easily be solved by tagging merge requests for pkg-security-related packages with a tag, and search for that? Assuming all pkg-security-team packages were to be moved to /debian/ (for sake of discussing this aspect). I'm not familiar enough with GitLab workflows to tell if using Assignee, Reviewer, Label, Environment or some other tag though.... then you could go to this page, using label CI as an example but CI would be replaced with PKG-SECURITY or similar: https://salsa.debian.org/groups/debian/-/merge_requests?scope=all&state=opened&label_name[]=CI > * Team contributors who have received permissions to push to all team-owned > repos (before becoming DDs) will still not be able to push to the packages > under debian/. This is not a huge issue because they can still open MRs, but > the process to contribute becomes a bit more cumbersome. Is there any documented policy for /debian/ packages including group membership policy? Maybe lack of documented policy for /debian/ is the biggest problem here though, it isn't even possible to evaluate if the policies are compatible. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature