Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #10777 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-07-23 20:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2019-07-24 15:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 39 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-07-23 20:00 +0200
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-07-23 20:10 +0200
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 <ondrej@sury.org> - 2019-07-23 21:20 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2019-07-23 21:40 +0200
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 <ondrej@sury.org> - 2019-07-23 21:40 +0200
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-07-24 06:40 +0200
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 <phil@hands.com> - 2019-07-24 07:10 +0200
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-07-24 09:10 +0200
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 <phil@hands.com> - 2019-07-24 10:20 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Alexander Zangerl <az@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 09:20 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 09:30 +0200
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 <bernat@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 11:30 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Alexander Zangerl <az@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 11:40 +0200
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 <wrar@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 12:10 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> - 2019-07-24 12:50 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-07-24 14:30 +0200
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 <bernat@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 15:20 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Fabien Givors <f+debian@chezlefab.net> - 2019-07-24 17:40 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-07-24 23:40 +0200
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 <bernat@debian.org> - 2019-07-25 11:50 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-07-25 13:40 +0200
Do we want to try to find consensus before a GR? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-07-25 18:40 +0200
Re: Do we want to try to find consensus before a GR? David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2019-07-28 02:10 +0200
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 <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2019-07-25 06:30 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2019-07-26 05:10 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org> - 2019-07-26 16:50 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> - 2019-07-26 17:30 +0200
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-08-27 02:10 +0200
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-08-27 10:30 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2019-08-27 11:30 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-07-26 19:00 +0200
dpatch was: Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-08-27 03:00 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Thomas Pircher <thp+debian@p5r.uk> - 2019-07-24 12:40 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2019-07-25 07:00 +0200
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 <ondrej@sury.org> - 2019-07-24 13:50 +0200
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 <norbert@preining.info> - 2019-07-24 14:10 +0200
Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2019-07-24 15:30 +0200
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 <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2019-07-25 06:20 +0200
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 <ondrej@sury.org> - 2019-07-24 15:40 +0200
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-23 20:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <yn7eW-7NO-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-23 20:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yn7oB-86O-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10777 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-23 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yn8ul-iz-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10777 |
> On 23 Jul 2019, at 15:11, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> 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 ondrej@sury.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-23 21:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <yn8NI-py-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10777 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-23 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yn8NI-py-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10782 |
> 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 ondrej@sury.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 06:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ynheh-5Ms-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10777 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 07:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynhHk-6cG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10795 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ynjzr-7lS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10796 |
Hi > 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? Communication with contributors can be difficult and long delayed, mostly due to being located in China and often away from personal device. We have one in our team. The respective packages are still mentined as old svn, not existing any more. Do you think they have time and energy to reading this here and comment? I am personally not upset at all, I just find it not a good idea to *mandate* things that are very personal development practices. But if we want to get rid of some developers, well, this is a way ahead I guess. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 10:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynkFb-7Zb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10799 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> writes: ... > I am personally not upset at all, On reading back what you wrote, I see that the impression I'd somehow gained has no basis in fact, so I'm sorry for even suggesting it. Perhaps it was just the brief flurry of "Reply to every email" behaviour that set some unconscious flag in me, probably harking back to Joey's thread-patterns post. Anyway, it looks like people are speaking up for themselves now, which is good. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alexander Zangerl <az@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 09:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynjJ7-7ps-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10796 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:07:51 +0200, Philip Hands writes: >You may be responding on behalf of people who turn out not to exist. well, i do exist. i have a few packages that aren't vc'd, and i don't see any need to change that. while i don't mind git, but i'd hate to be _forced_ to use salsa and gbp. so, why isn't it enough to recommend those things? as long as the resulting package aupload conforms to the specs i see no need to bring out the big bludgeon of policy to silence the minority packagers/old farts whose packages are older than 10y/people who don't like salsa. regards az -- Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + http://snafu.priv.at/ Fachbegriffe der Informatik, 99.9%: Lüge. -- Uwe Ohse
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ynjSN-7sV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10800 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Alexander Zangerl wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:07:51 +0200, Philip Hands writes: > >You may be responding on behalf of people who turn out not to exist. > > well, i do exist. i have a few packages that aren't vc'd, and i don't see > any need to change that. while i don't mind git, but i'd hate to be _forced_ > to use salsa and gbp. > > so, why isn't it enough to recommend those things? > > as long as the resulting package aupload conforms to the specs i see no > need to bring out the big bludgeon of policy to silence the > minority packagers/old farts whose packages are older than 10y/people who don't like salsa. I don't think that correlates with being old or experienced. Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 11:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynlKV-b5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10800 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
❦ 24 juillet 2019 17:07 +10, Alexander Zangerl <az@debian.org>: > well, i do exist. i have a few packages that aren't vc'd, and i don't see > any need to change that. while i don't mind git, but i'd hate to be _forced_ > to use salsa and gbp. > > so, why isn't it enough to recommend those things? Because without uniformity, we make it harder for people to contribute. I have already mentioned Fedora that provides everything in git with CI enabled, ability to contribute with pull requests, but that's far the only proponent. For example, NixOS works this way and they maintain more packages than us with far fewer people. HomeBrew is another example. While not having any official position in either of these projects, I was able to contribute easily to both of them because they use a standard workflow: no need to read tons of documentation. Having everything in git would be a first step. -- Grief can take care of itself; but to get the full value of a joy you must have somebody to divide it with. -- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alexander Zangerl <az@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynlUC-ew-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10806 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:23:07 +0200, Vincent Bernat writes: >> so, why isn't it enough to recommend those things? > >Because without uniformity, we make it harder for people to contribute. i detest unwarranted, imposed, uniformity. i *love* consistency. we have had consistency in the distribution for ages. we don't need uniform workflows. what good can come from reducing diversity and actively probibiting flexiblity? and why do you insist on micromanaging the workflow i've got to use? i thought we wanted to produce a good distribution, not force everybody gratuitously to use the same tools. or do you also plan to insist that your roofing contractor only uses <insert brand> tools and only cuts the rafters with your preferred saw? regards az -- Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + http://snafu.priv.at/ "[Perl] isn't a programming language, it's a thousand special case rules flying in close formation." -- Peter da Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ynmnD-Ef-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10809 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:34:02PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote: > >> so, why isn't it enough to recommend those things? > >Because without uniformity, we make it harder for people to contribute. > > i detest unwarranted, imposed, uniformity. i *love* consistency. we have > had consistency in the distribution for ages. we don't need uniform > workflows. > > what good can come from reducing diversity and actively probibiting > flexiblity? Other people can more reliably fix your packages. > and why do you insist on micromanaging the workflow i've got > to use? Because you are not the only one who may work on your packages. > or do you also plan to insist that your roofing contractor only uses > <insert brand> tools and only cuts the rafters with your preferred saw? This comparison is irrelevant. -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ynn0l-RT-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10809 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:34:02PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote: > i detest unwarranted, imposed, uniformity. i *love* consistency. we have > had consistency in the distribution for ages. we don't need uniform > workflows. It's not (always) about mandating workflows, see Ian's careful distinction in the GitPackagingSurvey between sharing format and workflow. Your previous mail said: > as long as the resulting package aupload conforms to the specs i see no I believe this GR is about moving the needle on what those specs say - that a source tarball is no longer enough to represent the "preferred form of modification" for debian developers (to reference another thread). **If** it's decided that a debian package must have a git representation hosted on salsa as a service to users, then yes that may restrict your workflow freedom. I hope it wouldn't go as far as requiring that you literally use git-buildpackage itself, but it might say that in non-exceptional cases, tag2upload must replace dput. That's a long way off, but yes you would end up having to adapt your workflow slightly to meet the new spec. > or do you also plan to insist that your roofing contractor only uses > <insert brand> tools and only cuts the rafters with your preferred saw? To extend the analogy, no, but I would be happy insisting that they place tiles, not thatch, and that rafters are cut in accordance with local building regulation. This will incidentally turn away all thatching contractors and anyone's workflow which relies on e.g. cutting corners when out of sight. Ultimately, assume a maintainer, or a whole team of uploaders gets hit by a bus, how can we specify the definition of a "package" such that other DDs can quickly and easily take up future maintenance. -- Phil Morrell (emorrp1)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 14:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynoz7-1Tx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10813 |
On July 24, 2019 10:43:57 AM UTC, Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:34:02PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote: >> i detest unwarranted, imposed, uniformity. i *love* consistency. we >have >> had consistency in the distribution for ages. we don't need uniform >> workflows. > >It's not (always) about mandating workflows, see Ian's careful >distinction in the GitPackagingSurvey between sharing format and >workflow. Your previous mail said: > >> as long as the resulting package aupload conforms to the specs i see >no > >I believe this GR is about moving the needle on what those specs say - >that a source tarball is no longer enough to represent the "preferred >form of modification" for debian developers (to reference another >thread). **If** it's decided that a debian package must have a git >representation hosted on salsa as a service to users, then yes that may >restrict your workflow freedom. Since use of a public VCS isn't universal among free software projects, the implication is that one could take a non-free upstream tarball, dump it into git on salsa and magically make it free. I think this is a ridiculous concept. >I hope it wouldn't go as far as requiring that you literally use >git-buildpackage itself, but it might say that in non-exceptional >cases, >tag2upload must replace dput. That's a long way off, but yes you would >end up having to adapt your workflow slightly to meet the new spec. I've been a Debian contributor for over a decade. I've never built a package for upload from anything other than dpkg-buildpackage. I've used gbp (as well as git-dpm and doing it manually) for patch management. This entire discussion feels to me like a small group of developers trying to tell the rest of us "my way or the highway". We are perfectly capable of phasing out obsolete workflows without a hammer like a GR (remember dpatch). I probably have better things to do with my time than learning from scratch how to contribute to Debian. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 15:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynplv-2pr-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10817 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
❦ 24 juillet 2019 12:23 +00, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>:
> This entire discussion feels to me like a small group of developers
> trying to tell the rest of us "my way or the highway". We are
> perfectly capable of phasing out obsolete workflows without a hammer
> like a GR (remember dpatch).
Without a GR, the outcome is decided by a shouting contest. A GR seeems
great to know if people are a majority or not.
--
Don't sacrifice clarity for small gains in "efficiency".
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabien Givors <f+debian@chezlefab.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ynrwZ-3Iv-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10818 |
Le 24/07/2019 à 15:16, Vincent Bernat a écrit : > Without a GR, the outcome is decided by a shouting contest. A GR seeems > great to know if people are a majority or not. A GR is not just a poll. Consider the following two questions: i) Which is the recommended workflow among X, Y, Z? ii) Do I accept, whatever the result of i), to make it mandatory for all submitted packages? I'm not sure most would agree to ii) unless they support the option chosen in i) What if the chosen standard is far from perfect? It's been said that the vcs² approach of gbp+quilt is more of a workaround than a well designed one. And there may be other problems. How will we be able to make (on even seek) progress if the workflow requirements are strictly defined? While the positive outcomes of having such a standard are clear, I think it should first come as a strong recommendation: the "right way" of doing packaging in most situations, along with a clear documentation and a toolchain working out-of-the-box and handling the different use-cases. If it's the "painless way", it will become a standard even without a GR. -- captnfab
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-24 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynx9o-7ow-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10818 |
On July 24, 2019 1:16:37 PM UTC, Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> wrote: > ❦ 24 juillet 2019 12:23 +00, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>: > >> This entire discussion feels to me like a small group of developers >> trying to tell the rest of us "my way or the highway". We are >> perfectly capable of phasing out obsolete workflows without a hammer >> like a GR (remember dpatch). > >Without a GR, the outcome is decided by a shouting contest. A GR seeems >great to know if people are a majority or not. 50% + 1 of developers mandating details like this to 50% - 1 of developers is a horrible way to solve problems like this. If you want people to do things a certain way, have it solve problems that cause people to decide they want to use it. Once you get rough consensus on the new way, change policy. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-25 11:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa |
| Message-ID | <ynIxP-6a7-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10826 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
❦ 24 juillet 2019 21:29 +00, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>:
>>> This entire discussion feels to me like a small group of developers
>>> trying to tell the rest of us "my way or the highway". We are
>>> perfectly capable of phasing out obsolete workflows without a hammer
>>> like a GR (remember dpatch).
>>
>>Without a GR, the outcome is decided by a shouting contest. A GR seeems
>>great to know if people are a majority or not.
>
> 50% + 1 of developers mandating details like this to 50% - 1 of
> developers is a horrible way to solve problems like this.
Still better than 10% mandating details like this to 90%.
> If you want people to do things a certain way, have it solve problems
> that cause people to decide they want to use it. Once you get rough
> consensus on the new way, change policy.
So, this is the shouting contest. A few people can post messages and
make it appear there is no consensus.
--
Document your data layouts.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web