Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11081 > unrolled thread

Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy Nicolas Dandrimont <olasd@debian.org> - 2018-11-08 14:40 +0100
    Re: Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy "Chris Lamb " <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-11-08 14:50 +0100
      Re: Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-11-08 16:50 +0100
        Re: Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy Yao Wei <mwei@debian.org> - 2018-11-08 17:00 +0100
      Re: Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy Yao Wei <mwei@debian.org> - 2018-11-08 16:50 +0100
    Re: Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-11-09 13:40 +0100

#11081 — Updating the Python Modules *Team* policy

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

[
I'm *not* talking about the Python "packaging" Policy[0], which is under the
prerogative of the python{,3}-defaults maintainers.

[0] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
]

Dear all,

The DPMT policy[1] is still talking about Alioth and git-dpm, which is ever so
slightly outdated. valhalla submitted a MR[2] a while ago to fix some of these
references, but that ended up being a dead letter.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/1

There was some confusion about who is the caretaker of this policy, I think
stemming from the fact that the "main" Python packaging policy also needs some
updates.

I feel the consensus is that that PR should just get merged and that the DPMT
policy can just be updated by team consensus on this list. Consider this a
heads up that I'll merge this in the next few days, unless there's any issue
people can come up with.

A MR describing the git-buildpackage workflow would also be appreciated.

Cheers,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #378:
Operators killed by year 2000 bug bite.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11083

Hi Nicolas,

> I feel the consensus is that that PR should just get merged and that the DPMT
> policy can just be updated by team consensus on this list. Consider this a
> heads up that I'll merge this in the next few days, unless there's any issue
> people can come up with.

Great idea.

Indeed, lets just get this merged (why wait?) so we don't confuse
or even scare away potential contributors with outdated docs. We
can always continue to iterate on it or even revert parts of it,
after all.


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11084

Yao Wei,

> I am proposing another merge request:
> 
> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/2

Another in the sense of "replacing" or "in addition to" the one
Nicolas already proposed we merge?

(If the former, how is it superior?)


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11086

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

My merge request already incorporates what Nicolas proposed, So, I think
that would mean both "replacing" and "in addition to" since my changeset
is a superset to the previous one.

The other changes are listed in my previous email.

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:45:15AM -0500, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > I am proposing another merge request:
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/2
> 
> Another in the sense of "replacing" or "in addition to" the one
> Nicolas already proposed we merge?
> 
> (If the former, how is it superior?)

Yao Wei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11085

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

I am proposing another merge request:

https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/2

Prominent changes are follows:

  * Change git repo from Alioth to Salsa
  * Suggests to use git-buildpackage and quilt format instead of git-dpm
    - Some unrelevant paragraphs on git-dpm are also removed
  * Changes strong discourgement of deviating from the policy since we
    are doing so recently.

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 08:42:13AM -0500, Chris Lamb  wrote:
> > I feel the consensus is that that PR should just get merged and that the DPMT
> > policy can just be updated by team consensus on this list. Consider this a
> > heads up that I'll merge this in the next few days, unless there's any issue
> > people can come up with.
> 
> Great idea.
> 
> Indeed, lets just get this merged (why wait?) so we don't confuse
> or even scare away potential contributors with outdated docs. We
> can always continue to iterate on it or even revert parts of it,
> after all.

Thanks,
Yao Wei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11087

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

čt 8. 11. 2018 v 14:30 odesílatel Nicolas Dandrimont <olasd@debian.org>
napsal:

> The DPMT policy[1] is still talking about Alioth and git-dpm, which is
> ever so
> slightly outdated. valhalla submitted a MR[2] a while ago to fix some of
> these
> references, but that ended up being a dead letter.
>

because this is just simple Alioth->DPMT migration I just squashed and
merged it.

Thanks.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web