Am Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 10:17:19AM +0200 schrieb Chris Hofstaedtler: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 23:36:31 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > IMO, and from discussions in the Debian Perl Group, the blocker is > > the conversion of existing repos, both on salsa (which should be > > doable via the API as suggested in the sketches mentioned above) and > > also locally for hundreds of developer machines [git fails horribly > > on the upstream/ → upstream/latest change]. > > I want to echo this pain. When changing the layout it seems almost > better to start from scratch. > > Additionally, in my opinion debian/latest is a mistake we should not > recommend.
OK, I admit I do not mind about the actual names that are used. I mind about the fact that it makes sense to settle with some *common* repository layout for all our repositories to make sure that someone who wants to contribute to some random git repository feels home immediately. Sam said, gbp-buildpackage default is fine. If people agree here we could change DEP-14 to simply use this (despite now lots of repositories are featuring the currently suggested DEP-14 layout). Gregor and Chris underline that the choice of the names in DEP-14 are hard to convert. I'm fine with some better proposal. For me DEP-14 is an attempt to settle with some common default. I personally do not mind about the actual names. I guess its a requirement to have some automated conversation (which could be even done by Janitor for instance). If DEP-14 suggests something that fails here its hard to accept for many (including myself). Any ideas how we can come up with some suggestion that will finally enable us with some common reopsitory layout that enables automated conversion from any existing layout. IMHO we should move DEP-14 forward since having it an open suggestion for ages will not bring any progress. Kind regards Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
