Re: Bikeshedding

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@debian.org>]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2019/03/31 09:39, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> And less "I'm the package maintainer, this is my castle, go away" and
> >> more "This is how the majority does it, you follow, the benefit of it
> >> being one way, not a dozen different, outweight some personal
> >> preferences".
> > 
> > Let's cut to the chase of this.
> > 
> > Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git on salsa and
> > every Debian Developer with upload rights to the archive should have
> > commit/push right to every packaging repository on salsa.
> > 
> > DPL candidates: do you agree with this statement?
> 
> In general, I think so. I'm unsure about the first "must" though, I tend
> to like that we're not so rigid and inflexible in our policies that we
> can't cater for a few exceptions. For example, I could understand that
> packagers of a VCS system would want to host their work in such a VCS,
> for example...
> 
> """
> $ debcheckout -d bzr
> type	bzr
> url	https://code.launchpad.net/~debian-bazaar/debian/sid/bzr/unstable
> """

As the primary maintainer of Bazaar in Debian, I find it convenient to
maintain the Bazaar packaging in Bazaar but I would be very happy to
see all packages move to Git on salsa if that enables improved tooling
across the archive.

The Vcs-* headers were a major improvement at the time they were
introduced. At the time it was unclear what the dominant Vcs would be,
but git has long since emerged as the dominant VCS for Debian
packages.

> I'm not fundamentally against that being a "must", but we should just be
> aware that there might be some use cases that we'll end up sacrificing
> in order to make such a unification of source control hosting possible.
What kind of use cases do you have in mind that wouldn't work with Git on salsa?

Cheers,

Jelmer