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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
90 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Goirand-3
Hi there!

This probably has been floating around for some time. IMO, enough time
so that we start to discuss $subject.

Before starting any type of text for such a GR, I'd like to hear you
folks. What are your thougts about all this? Especially, I'd like to
hear others that would be *AGAINST* such a GR.

I'm not sure yet I really want to start all of this. Sometimes, no GR is
better than a GR. If the discussions we will have here leads me to
believe there's no chance for the GR to pass, I probably wont initiate
it. But at least, I would like the discussion to start.

So, the topics are:

1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
packaging.

2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
consistency.

3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.

I do believe #1 will pass easily, but that it's useless without #2, and
there is some kind of uncertainty. For #3, I'm not even sure we should
vote for that, I probably even prefer it not to be voted for myself,
though what's annoying me is having to pull some packaging from non-free
services such as Github, and this would make an end to it.

Please do devide your replies clearly on the 3 topics. If you see other
topics that should be discussed, please identify them clearly as well.

For those not convinced yet on the utility of such a GR, just think
about a few months/years from now, where we will be 100% sure that
absolutely all packages will be hosted on Salsa (or another system we
decide to migrate to) with the same Git layout, and how easy it will be
(for example) to add some kind of CI/CD for all packages.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Norbert Preining-5
Hi

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> packaging.

I don't see how we can mandate git. What if I do *not* use any vcs at
all? And I know enough projects that run on svn, hg, and other vcs.
I don't see that mandating git has any reason besides the "appeal to
popularity", which at least in critical thinking circles is commonly
seen as fallacy.

> 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
> seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
> consistency.

Again, this might be a good idea for a recommendation, but mandating
doesn't make sense.

> 3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.

No comment on that from my side. I will not move there.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Norbert Preining-5
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> > packaging.

I forgot to add. If you ever want to go there, you also have to add
        mandate that the maintainer pushes the most recent versions
        to the VcsGit specified repository.
git is as everyone knows completely distributed, so using it locally
without a remote is viable.

Even till now I know too many packages where the released versions and
the one in the VcsGit are widely apart. Do you want mandating certain
push behaviour of developers?

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Steve McIntyre
In reply to this post by Thomas Goirand-3
Hey Thomas!

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:

>
>This probably has been floating around for some time. IMO, enough time
>so that we start to discuss $subject.
>
>Before starting any type of text for such a GR, I'd like to hear you
>folks. What are your thougts about all this? Especially, I'd like to
>hear others that would be *AGAINST* such a GR.
>
>I'm not sure yet I really want to start all of this. Sometimes, no GR is
>better than a GR. If the discussions we will have here leads me to
>believe there's no chance for the GR to pass, I probably wont initiate
>it. But at least, I would like the discussion to start.
>
>So, the topics are:
>
>1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
>packaging.

While this may seem like a no-brainer. there really are things that
git doesn't do well. Really large binary files do not work well in a
git repo - talk to the games team, for example.

>2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
>seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
>consistency.

I think there's far more variation here than you think.

>3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
>
>I do believe #1 will pass easily, but that it's useless without #2, and
>there is some kind of uncertainty. For #3, I'm not even sure we should
>vote for that, I probably even prefer it not to be voted for myself,
>though what's annoying me is having to pull some packaging from non-free
>services such as Github, and this would make an end to it.

There are genuinely good reasons for *not* using salsa. If the debian
packaging is directly included as part of the upstream git repo(s)
somewhere else, for example. It's a good thing to encourage salsa
usage (and I agree 100% with that for most things), but let's not
argue about making things mandatory please.

--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                [hidden email]
"Managing a volunteer open source project is a lot like herding
 kittens, except the kittens randomly appear and disappear because they
 have day jobs." -- Matt Mackall

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Vincent Bernat-3
 ❦ 23 juillet 2019 19:05 +01, Steve McIntyre <[hidden email]>:

>>3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
>>
>>I do believe #1 will pass easily, but that it's useless without #2, and
>>there is some kind of uncertainty. For #3, I'm not even sure we should
>>vote for that, I probably even prefer it not to be voted for myself,
>>though what's annoying me is having to pull some packaging from non-free
>>services such as Github, and this would make an end to it.
>
> There are genuinely good reasons for *not* using salsa. If the debian
> packaging is directly included as part of the upstream git repo(s)
> somewhere else, for example. It's a good thing to encourage salsa
> usage (and I agree 100% with that for most things), but let's not
> argue about making things mandatory please.
git being distributed, you can still push to Salsa too. I don't know the
first thing about Fedora, but they have everything in one place [0] and
I can take a look, browse through history, it seems I can contribute
with just a PR and all packages have the CI plugged in.

[0]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/
--
Use library functions.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Goirand-3
In reply to this post by Norbert Preining-5
On 7/23/19 7:55 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
>> packaging.
>
> I don't see how we can mandate git. What if I do *not* use any vcs at
> all?

Then use one?

> I don't see that mandating git has any reason besides the "appeal to
> popularity", which at least in critical thinking circles is commonly
> seen as fallacy.

The idea is to be able to use unified tooling. Currently, we can't for
example easily do a mass-commit on all packages. Or apply a new CI test
to all packages. And that's even without considering the entry barrier
for contributing to the Debian archive. In for example FreeBSD, it's a
way more obvious how to contribute to /usr/ports. In Debian, it's not.

>> 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
>> seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
>> consistency.
>
> Again, this might be a good idea for a recommendation, but mandating
> doesn't make sense.

Same reason as above.

>> 3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
>
> No comment on that from my side. I will not move there.

Maybe you could at least consider moving away from Github, and switch to
a platform based on free software? For example own gitlab instance. Or
anything else. I'm really bothered by Github, like a few of us are.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ondřej Surý-4

> On 23 Jul 2019, at 15:11, Thomas Goirand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> The idea is to be able to use unified tooling. Currently, we can't for
> example easily do a mass-commit on all packages. Or apply a new CI test
> to all packages. And that's even without considering the entry barrier
> for contributing to the Debian archive. In for example FreeBSD, it's a
> way more obvious how to contribute to /usr/ports. In Debian, it's not.

Well, yes, please.  We should have done that years ago.  It’s extremely
bothersome if you need to help fix a other developer/maintainer’s package
and they don’t use DVCS (well, I mean git) and a layout that gbp can work
with smoothly.

I usually end up importing packages into gbp and working from the local
mirror.  But it is bothersome.

Thanks for doing that,
--
Ondřej Surý
[hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Goirand-3
In reply to this post by Steve McIntyre
On 7/23/19 8:05 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There are genuinely good reasons for *not* using salsa. If the debian
> packaging is directly included as part of the upstream git repo(s)
> somewhere else, for example.

I just has a very interesting conversation with Tollef. If you use a
native package, then it's easy to pull for upstream, and for upstream to
pull from you. That's IMO a nice workaround.

> It's a good thing to encourage salsa
> usage (and I agree 100% with that for most things), but let's not
> argue about making things mandatory please.

If we need exceptions, we can take care of them in the GR text, and even
make the rules for such exceptions explicitly fuzzy. However, I believe
this will concerns a very small amount of packages.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ansgar Burchardt-8
In reply to this post by Thomas Goirand-3
Thomas Goirand writes:
> The idea is to be able to use unified tooling. Currently, we can't for
> example easily do a mass-commit on all packages. Or apply a new CI test
> to all packages.

That wouldn't be changed by having all repositories on Salsa.  You would
need to require the same permissions for all packages.

Some packages might even require signing some legal document to
contribute to (unless you NMU them)...

> In for example FreeBSD, it's a way more obvious how to contribute to
> /usr/ports. In Debian, it's not.

Most other distributions I know about seem to have only the packaging
information (debian/*) and not the upstream source in their version
control system.  So more people might be familiar with this; it also
also makes tree-wide changes to packaging much easier ;-)

Ansgar

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ondřej Surý-4
> Most other distributions I know about seem to have only the packaging
> information (debian/*) and not the upstream source in their version
> control system.  So more people might be familiar with this; it also
> also makes tree-wide changes to packaging much easier ;-)

Is there a tooling around gbp that can do that?  It would be great if there was.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Michael Banck
In reply to this post by Thomas Goirand-3
Hi,

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This probably has been floating around for some time. IMO, enough time
> so that we start to discuss $subject.

Why is this a GR and not a policy proposal?


Michael

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andrey Rahmatullin-3
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:47:32PM -0300, Michael Banck wrote:
> > This probably has been floating around for some time. IMO, enough time
> > so that we start to discuss $subject.
>
> Why is this a GR and not a policy proposal?
The policy documents the majority practices, which I think cannot be said
about using Vcs-Git, let alone specific workflows and repo locations.

--
WBR, wRAR

signature.asc (911 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Russ Allbery-2
In reply to this post by Michael Banck
Michael Banck <[hidden email]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:

>> This probably has been floating around for some time. IMO, enough time
>> so that we start to discuss $subject.

> Why is this a GR and not a policy proposal?

Policy changes require strong consensus, and it's very unlikely that we
have that sort of strong consensus here.

Put another way, Policy is already behind on documenting things that we've
all already agreed about but that need some time and attention to document
properly (stuff like triggers, good practices for systemd units,
multi-arch, and so forth).  For things like this that will be
controversial (see also dropping our support level for alternate init
systems, which comes up periodically), we're going to ask the project to
find some other decision-making process.

For a proposal like this, I think a GR may be the best decision-making
process we have.  (This shouldn't be taken as an opinion either way on
whether this proposal specifically should be adopted.)  If we do want to
change our historic maintainer-driven free-for-all and start mandating
specific tools, that's a sufficiently large *cultural* change in the
process that, unless we can reach some sort of guided consensus like we
did with dh (and I think this is more controversial and is also a much
stronger statement than we arrived at with dh), having everyone vote on it
is probably the right move.

--
Russ Allbery ([hidden email])               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Adam Borowski-3
In reply to this post by Thomas Goirand-3
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> packaging.

Good.  Especially if we can then drop quilt.
 
> 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
> seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
> consistency.

Big fat enormous NO!  gbp is a workaround for the biggest evil in our
packaging: quilt.  Watching pro-git-only talks on the Debconf, I got the
impression that if we dropped the VCS-in-VCS approach, there'd be no need
for most of that complexity.

The vast majority of upstreams already use git, adding 1980's-style patches
on top of that is like pulling a non-broken car with a horse.

And, a flat tarball like .orig is no longer a preferred form for
modification.  Do you remember the brouchacha in 2011 when Red Hat released
their kernel sources that way?

I'd say we should drop .orig and _forbid_ gbp.

> 3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.

Or perhaps we could have a service mirror official git repos for packages
hosted elsewhere?


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ I've read an article about how lively happy music boosts
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ productivity.  You can read it, too, you just need the
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ right music while doing so.  I recommend Skepticism
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ (funeral doom metal).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Holger Levsen-2
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:59:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> > packaging.
>
> Good.  Especially if we can then drop quilt.
>  
> > 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
> > seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
> > consistency.
>
> Big fat enormous NO!  gbp is a workaround for the biggest evil in our
> packaging: quilt.  Watching pro-git-only talks on the Debconf, I got the
> impression that if we dropped the VCS-in-VCS approach, there'd be no need
> for most of that complexity.
>
> The vast majority of upstreams already use git, adding 1980's-style patches
> on top of that is like pulling a non-broken car with a horse.
>
> And, a flat tarball like .orig is no longer a preferred form for
> modification.  Do you remember the brouchacha in 2011 when Red Hat released
> their kernel sources that way?
>
> I'd say we should drop .orig and _forbid_ gbp.
>
> > 3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
>
> Or perhaps we could have a service mirror official git repos for packages
> hosted elsewhere?
I second kilobyte's amendment. Except the part about dropping .orig,
somewhat sadly.

Put more seriously: #1 I'd agree with, #2 I think is impossible and for
#3 I really like the idea of mirroring them all, https://src.fedoraproject.org
is indeed really cool.


--
tschau,
        Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Philip Hands
In reply to this post by Steve McIntyre
Steve McIntyre <[hidden email]> writes:

>>3- Mandating using Salsa as a Git repository.
>>
>>I do believe #1 will pass easily, but that it's useless without #2, and
>>there is some kind of uncertainty. For #3, I'm not even sure we should
>>vote for that, I probably even prefer it not to be voted for myself,
>>though what's annoying me is having to pull some packaging from non-free
>>services such as Github, and this would make an end to it.
>
> There are genuinely good reasons for *not* using salsa. If the debian
> packaging is directly included as part of the upstream git repo(s)
> somewhere else, for example. It's a good thing to encourage salsa
> usage (and I agree 100% with that for most things), but let's not
> argue about making things mandatory please.
If the problem one is trying to fix is people keeping the only copy on
some proprietary service (which I think Thomas cited as motivation),
perhaps it would be sufficient to suggest/recommend that people have an
additional repo on salsa, and set up the hooks to ensure that every push
gets immediately bounced onto salsa.

I'd think that most people would have few objections to doing that,
especially since it gives them the reassurance of a backup.

Perhaps all that's really needed here is documentation to point people
at that tells them how to do it easily easily.

Of course there's still the question of how to deal with the metadata
surrounding the repo, that might be stuck inside the proprietary
service, so maybe that's not a complete fix.

Cheers, Phil.
--
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Thomas Goirand-3
In reply to this post by Adam Borowski-3
On 7/23/19 11:59 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
>> packaging.
>
> Good.  Especially if we can then drop quilt.
>  
>> 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
>> seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
>> consistency.
>
> Big fat enormous NO!  gbp is a workaround for the biggest evil in our
> packaging: quilt.  Watching pro-git-only talks on the Debconf, I got the
> impression that if we dropped the VCS-in-VCS approach, there'd be no need
> for most of that complexity.

How do you track what you've applied in Debian, and the status of your
patch upstream? With DEP3 patch headers in d/patches, we track this easily.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Norbert Preining-5
In reply to this post by Thomas Goirand-3
Hi Thomas,

> Then use one?

I do use, but several people I know don't.

> The idea is to be able to use unified tooling. Currently, we can't for
> example easily do a mass-commit on all packages. Or apply a new CI test

How do you want to handle permissions? So there is a super user on salsa
who can commit to any repository there? I would be well at least
slightly surprised to see such changes.

> to all packages. And that's even without considering the entry barrier
> for contributing to the Debian archive. In for example FreeBSD, it's a
> way more obvious how to contribute to /usr/ports. In Debian, it's not.

Fine with me, strongly recommend git - anyway, it is already a fact that
it is the de-facto standard, so this is a non-argument. My argument is
for those developers who might have other ways/interests.

> Maybe you could at least consider moving away from Github, and switch to
> a platform based on free software? For example own gitlab instance. Or

Why? All the data is in the git commits and tags. I don't use anything
else there, in particular not issues etc.
So what is your concern besides "religious" github hating?

> anything else. I'm really bothered by Github, like a few of us are.

So be it, but don't put *your* bothering onto others. I am bothered by a
lot of things, too, and I don't ask you to be bothered the same way.

Thanks

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Philip Hands
Norbert Preining <[hidden email]> writes:

...
> Fine with me, strongly recommend git - anyway, it is already a fact that
> it is the de-facto standard, so this is a non-argument. My argument is
> for those developers who might have other ways/interests.

Would it not be worth waiting for them to respond to this issue
themselves, rather than immediately firing off a series of emails that
give the impression that you are personally upset about this?

You may be responding on behalf of people who turn out not to exist.

Cheers, Phil
--
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Harlan Lieberman-Berg
In reply to this post by Thomas Goirand-3
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:31 PM Thomas Goirand <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using Git for
> packaging.

While I personally don't have a problem with this, I'm not sure how
/necessary/ it is.  Though inconvenient, if we have source-only
uploads as mandatory, we can always do a mass NMU.  Ugly, but
possible.

> 2- Mandating using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout for Git, as this
> seems to be the most popular layout, and that we need some kind of
> consistency.

While this is how most of my packages are, because they're maintained
in teams, I'd not want to see it as policy.  The debcherry workflow is
much easier to work with on so many different levels.  If we're not
willing to force people to use debhelper, forcing them to use git and
salsa seems much more extreme.  In terms of packages that I actively
avoid contributing to, packages using CDBS are way, way higher on my
ick-list than things using svn or mercurial, or even something more
esoteric like pijul or darcs.  Hell, I'll take perforce over CDBS.

--
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
~hlieberman

12345