Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: [Python-modules-team] partd_0.3.8-1_source.changes ACCEPTED  into unstable
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 18:00:01 +0200
Message-ID: <tNX9v-37F-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <tNWQ9-314-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNWQ9-314-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <ghisvail@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 45
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9551

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 11:35 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Hi Diane,
> 
> On Jun 02, 2017, at 05:48 AM, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> 
> > partd (0.3.8-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> > .
> >   * Switch from git-dpm to gbp
> 
> I may be misremembering our previous discussions on the topic, but we all know
> that in the long term we want to convert off of git-dpm.

Indeed.

> My recollection was that in the short term, "officially" we want to
> opportunistically convert packages as an experiment, and to work out the steps
> needed, so that at some time in the future, we'd mass migrate the bulk of our
> packages.

Correct. However, I have collaborated with Diane on some of her
packages (dask) and the git-dpm setup was broken. So, I took this
opportunity to get rid of git-dpm and switch to gbp with her approval.

> I'm curious, did you follow the steps outlined in
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ to do the conversion?  (Search
> for "Converting git-dpm to gbp pq") or did you follow some other process?  Are
> you adopting gbp-pq for your own workflow?  Do you have any insights that will
> help others convert, or that can guide our future mass migration?  Is there
> anything you can add to the wiki page to help others when they
> opportunistically convert?

I can't speak for herself for partd.

For dask, the patch queue was not recognized by git-dpm, so the source
tree was essentially in patch non-applied mode. The conversion was then
straightforward: delete .git-dpm, add gbp.conf and do a round trip of
gbp pq import / export.

> For the team: should we just allow opportunistic conversions and live with a
> mixed git-dpm/gbp state in our packages for a while?

IMO, I believe it is not the end of the world, but I am obviously
biased.

Ghis