Il 28/08/2024 04:13, Otto Kekäläinen ha scritto:
Big thanks for your work and of other people that are trying to improve contribution and collaboration in Debian.Hi!While I intend to continue on iterating DEP-18, here is a summary to those who did not wade through the 140+ messages on the topic. Unfortunately, the summary itself is also a bit long :)
## Maintainer Workflows There were concerns that requiring specific Git and Gitlab practices could create burdens for existing maintainers, especially single-person maintainers. Sean Whitton described his own preferences as a maintainer:I am happy to use salsa for git hosting and access management. I love that I can easily grant push access to my non-DD team members. But, I turn off salsa MRs for the repos of all packages I regularly upload. I would hope that this DEP can be written such as to account for these sorts of choices. Fabio Fantoni suggested allowing maintainers to specify their preferred collaboration methods in a machine-readable way, for example through a "Collaboration-Policy" field in debian/control.
As pointed by other people there is debian/README.source that can be used for that.
So if don't want to add a new field/s to d/control, and/or a new file we could simply use that one making this thing more known. and in the case of teams or people who manage many packages (even hundreds or thousands) with the same methods could put a link in d/README.source so as to point to a single page/site/repository to keep updated in a simpler and faster way with all the information
## Performance and Reliability Multiple participants, including Salvo Tomaselli, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues, Andrea Pappacoda, and Gioele Barabucci, complained about Salsa/GitLab being slow or unreliable at times, which deterred contribution. Improvements to performance and uptime were seen as important. In response, Otto Kekäläinen noted that the Salsa admins had posted about upcoming hardware upgrades and other improvements to address these issues at https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/support/-/issues.
Thanks for working to improving Salsa.However, there have also been numerous performance problems and unavailability of other parts useful to both contributors and users, in particular packages.debian.org and wiki.debian.org which don't seems has been considered, or am I wrong?
## Machine-Readable Metadata Fabio Fantoni and Niels Thykier proposed including more machine-readable metadata about packaging workflows (e.g. in debian/control) to help automate contributor onboarding. Niels Thykier outlined some specific examples of information that could be captured:Does this package use `gbp dch` (or some other mechanisms) to generate the changelog OR should I include a changelog entry with my patch. Does this package use some form of automatic formatting that I should apply when I do my changes (if `wrap-and-sort`, then which options)? Does the maintainer prefer MR via salsa or BTS with patches for when I want to submit my changes for review.
Even if don't want to add them as Machine-Readable Metadata, I think can put them at least in debian/README.source (more details above), I think the important thing would be to advise maintainers more to make such information easily available.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
