On Friday, August 2, 2024 11:26:01 PM MST Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I imagine that some in the silent crowd hesitate to chime in due to that > lumping together the use of git and the use of Gitlab into an > all-or-nothing choice. I think you intended that reduction, for the > purpose of simplifying the conversation. I don't think that > simplification is helpfull, however.
I am one of the silent crowd who has followed this discussion. I have three feelings. 1. Debian workflows are too fractured. The project would be better if we asked people to standardize around a single (or a small number) of workflows. To do so, the workflow would need to be flexible enough to handle the wide range of technical needs of all the packages and upstream configurations. 2. Standardizing around a single (or small number of) workflows will make some people unhappy. But that is an acceptable price to pay because of the general benefit to the project *as long as the correct solution is adopted*. Unity is more important than minority opinions on this particular issue. 3. I do not yet have the wisdom to ascertain what the correct solution is. Until I do, I applaud those who attempt to push this discussion forward, and I follow it closely, but I haven’t commented. I think adopting an incorrect mandated (or maybe even recommended) workflow is worse than the fractured status quo. Number 3 is why I haven’t previously commented. In regards to DEP-18, I don’t know if it is the correct way to go for many of the criticisms that have already been expressed. But, if it isn’t DEP-18, I think it will eventually be something. And, although this might not be a popular opinion among some, I think Debian should get to the point that there is one workflow (or a very small number of workflows) that all packages are expected to follow, both for packaging and for collaboration. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
