Matthias Urlichs writes ("Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging
repositories"):
> This DEP describes an integrated workflow.
That's true right now. But I think a document called `Recommended
layout for Git packaging repositories' ought to cover the reasonable
possibilties which are currently in use.
> This DEP does not say anything about any sort of divided workflow, other
> than to implicitly (un?intentionally?) discourage its use by omission.
I think that implicit discouragement is a problem. It /could/ be
solved by Raphael retitling his document and changing the intro, so
that the restricted scope is clear.
But I think it would be better to have a single document which
contains the different alternatives.
> Thus, please don't try to shoehorn a divided workflow into this DEP.
> Write your own.
I disagree with half of this but agree with the other half.
I think that the divided workflow should be documented in this DEP.
But I agree that those who like the divided workflow should be the
ones to write it up. I see that Simon (for example) is actively
engaging in the discussion.
Simon, would you care to write up a concrete text documenting the
conventional divided layouts ? Raphael, I guess you have the DEP in
git. Where's the repo ? Wait, what, it's in the webtree in ...
is that still CVS ?
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21603.28389.467398.780...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
